Woolley v. Woolley
Woolley v. Woolley, 1986 Va. App. LEXIS 368 (1986)
Winning Party
Daris Clifton Woolley
Key Issue
Spousal Support
Case Type
FAMILY
Facts
•
Both parties were approaching fifty years of age at the end of their sixteen-year marriage.
•
The husband was earning $88,000 per year, and the wife was unemployed.
•
The husband's mother contributed $27,500 toward the purchase price of the home, but her name was not on the deed or any deed of trust.
•
The parties enjoyed an above-average standard of living during the marriage.
•
The husband obtained employment as Assistant to the President of United Coal Company in Bristol, Virginia, after retiring from military service.
•
The wife accompanied the husband to his various military assignments over the course of his career.
•
The husband's mother had lived in the parties' Alexandria home from 1979 until November 1983.
•
There was no evidence that the husband's mother was promised or believed she had acquired an ownership interest in the property.
•
The wife was not employed at the time of the support hearing and had not applied for employment or job training during the separation.
•
Two physicians testified that the wife had a heart condition which needed further diagnosis and treatment.
•
The parties were married in 1969 and had no children.
•
The husband served in the United States Army from the time of their marriage until his retirement approximately thirteen years later.
•
The husband's mother contributed $27,500 toward the purchase price of the home in 1976, but her name was not on the deed or any deed of trust.
•
The wife's doctors testified that she had a heart problem which required further testing and rest.
•
The court provided the wife with approximately $15,000 more than the husband in the monetary award, stating she needed money to reestablish herself and go to school.
•
The husband's mother was not a party to the divorce action.
•
Her contribution to the down payment on the property was never acknowledged in any contract, agreement or other instrument.
•
There was no evidence of fraud or injustice perpetrated on the husband's mother.
•
The husband's total annual income was approximately $88,000, with $26,000 representing his military pension.
•
The wife had no current job skills or educational training.
•
The wife's only employment outside of the home was working in a consignment shop for a period of six months.
•
The parties entered into a stipulation where the wife would receive twenty-five percent of the husband's military pension, characterized as alimony for tax purposes.
Explore this Case with AI
Ask about this case, find precedent, analyze legal issues, or draft provisions. Powered by all precedential U.S. cases (10M+)
No credit card required
Key Holdings
•
Yes, the trial court erred in imposing a constructive trust on the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence in favor of the husband's mother because she was not a party to the divorce action, and the court lacked the authority to make an equitable distribution award to a non-party under Code | 20-107.3.
•
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider all of the factors of Code | 20-107.1 when determining the issue of spousal support, despite awarding the wife a portion of the husband's pension.
•
The trial court erred in imposing a constructive trust because there was no evidence of fraud or injustice perpetrated on the husband's mother when the marital residence was purchased, nor was there evidence that she was promised or believed she had acquired an ownership interest in the property.
Citations
Woolley v. Woolley, 1986 Va. App. LEXIS 368, 3 Va. Law Rep. 1063, 3 Va. App. 337, 349 S.E.2d 422 (1986)
Legal Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the trial court lacked authority to make an equitable distribution award to a non-party (the husband's mother). The court also found that the elements necessary for the imposition of a constructive trust were not present. Finally, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the wife would not receive spousal support beyond a percentage of the husband's pension, as the trial court failed to consider all of the factors outlined in Code | 20-107.1.
Outcome
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its rulings.
Want to Learn More About StrongSuit?
StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis
No credit card required
Copyright 2026 StrongSuit AI, Inc. | All Rights Reserved