A Carluzzo Rochkind & Smith note: Following is an excellent article by Virginia Lawyers Weekly. We did not handle this case, but it brings up important points your divorce lawyers should be familiar with. For more than 30 years our divorce lawyers in Manassas have helped clients with such matters in Prince William County, Fairfax County, Woodbridge, and throughout Northern Virginia. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment, please contact our law firm at (703) 361-0776.
Husband waited too long to claim entitlement to marital home
By Virginia Lawyers Weekly – 9/22/2025
Where the circuit court entered a final order of divorce in 2019, and it did not retain jurisdiction to adjudicate equitable distribution, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider husband’s claim to the marital home that was brought more than 21 days from entry of the 2019 divorce order.
Background
In 2019, the Fairfax County Circuit Court entered a final order of divorce for Roberto Senzano Sarmiento and Sharon Gonzales. The order incorporated a settlement agreement handwritten by the parties stating that all marital assets “ha[d] been equal[l]y distributed.”
Then, in 2020, Roberto brought the present action seeking to establish that his and Sharon’s marital home was held in constructive trust by her father, Diomedes Gonzalez, for the benefit of Roberto and Sharon. Following a bench trial, the circuit court ruled in favor of Roberto.
Analysis
The question is whether the circuit court’s jurisdiction to consider this claim expired after 21 days from entry of the 2019 divorce order. It did. Although Roberto styled the present claim as a separate action for constructive trust, his prayer for relief fundamentally asked the court to reopen divorce proceedings and “adjudicate the remedy provided by [Code § 20-107.3].”
Roberto asked the court to determine “the ownership . . . of all [real] property” between him and Sharon, its “value,” and whether “such property . . . [wa]s marital,” thereby allowing him to claim a one-half beneficial interest. Based on those “equities and . . . interests in the marital property,” Roberto sought a de facto “monetary award” or distribution equal to one-half of the house’s value. Thus, although styled as a separate action against a third- party, at bottom, Roberto’s claim was one seeking equitable distribution of his and Sharon’s marital home.
To be sure, during the 2019 divorce proceedings, the court did not specifically determine the ownership interests in the house because the parties did not request equitable distribution— indeed, they explicitly agreed that “all [marital] assets ha[d]” already “been equal[l]y distributed.” But if the court “d[oes] not retain jurisdiction in the divorce decree to adjudicate equitable distribution,” it’s authority to do so expires with the conclusion of the 21-day period following entry of the divorce decree.
It is undisputed both that the court did not retain jurisdiction and that Roberto failed to “challenge [the 2019 divorce order] in the circuit court within 21 days of its entry.” Accordingly, because the present action sought the equitable distribution of marital property, and because the court’s jurisdiction to do so had expired, the court erred by failing to dismiss Roberto’s claim.
Vacated.
Gonzalez v. Sarmiento, Record No. 2002-23-4, Sept. 9, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Ortiz). From the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Carroll). Warner F. Young (Stephen D. Halfhill; Mahdavi, Bacon, Halfhill & Young, PLLC, on brief), for appellants. Ronald C. McCormack (Ronald C. McCormack, PC, on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-247. 8 pp.
If you are in need of experienced divorce lawyers who get results, please contact us online or by calling 703-361-0776.
Divorce lawyers in Manassas serving Prince William County, Fairfax County, Woodbridge, and all of Northern Virginia.
