No. A judge cannot give one person more property just because the other is a high earner. The court explained that there are two separate decisions in a divorce: (1) splitting up the property you got together, and (2) deciding if one person needs ongoing financial support (alimony). Splitting property is about what's fair based on the past. Alimony is about what's needed for the future. The lower court made a mistake by mixing these two things together when it used the husband's high future salary to justify giving the wife an extra $50,000 in property.

Yes, the court was wrong. Mrs. Reid legally abandoned the marriage when she left, so she shouldn't get spousal support. While she said her emotional health was in danger, the problems she described were just a normal breakdown of their relationship, not something that legally justified her leaving. Her complaints about Dr. Reid working too much, not helping with the kids, lack of closeness, and not having enough sex were all part of patterns they both created throughout their marriage. When she left and quickly filed for divorce, that counts as desertion under the law, which means she gave up her right to get money from him. The court also made a mistake when deciding how to divide their property by looking at Dr. Reid's ability to earn more money in the future and Mrs. Reid's need for housing. Those things should only be considered when deciding support payments, not when dividing property they already have. The property division should only look at what they accumulated during the marriage, not what might happen in the future.

No. Virginia's equitable distribution statute, Code § 20-107.3, does not permit consideration of one spouse's future earning capacity or the other's future needs when making a monetary award. The court reasoned that the legislature intended to maintain a clear separation between the considerations for spousal support and those for equitable distribution. Spousal support, governed by Code § 20-107.1, addresses future needs and financial resources, while equitable distribution is an adjustment of the parties' interests in the wealth accumulated *during* the marriage. The court held that using future-oriented factors like earning capacity and housing needs misapplies the equitable distribution statute and defeats the distinct statutory scheme, as these factors are unrelated to a spouse's contribution to the accumulated marital wealth.

Yes, the court erred in denying Dr. Reid a divorce on the ground of desertion and in granting Mrs. Reid spousal support because the evidence shows that Mrs. Reid legally deserted the marriage. While Mrs. Reid claimed her emotional health was endangered, the court found that her complaints stemmed from a gradual breakdown in the marital relationship rather than from conduct that would legally justify leaving. The evidence established that the pattern of conduct in the marriage resulted in Mrs. Reid's frustration, but this cannot be attributed solely to Dr. Reid's conduct. Her complaints about Dr. Reid's work habits, lack of involvement in child discipline, lack of intimacy, and infrequent sexual relations were part of a pattern developed between them throughout their marriage. Under these circumstances, Mrs. Reid's decision to terminate matrimonial cohabitation constituted legal desertion, which forfeited her right to spousal support. The court also erred in its equitable distribution award by improperly considering Dr. Reid's superior earning capacity and Mrs. Reid's need for housing under Code § 20-107.3, which should focus on equitably distributing accumulated marital wealth rather than future earning potential or needs. These factors are more appropriately considered under the spousal support statute (Code § 20-107.1). The award of attorney's fees and costs was vacated for reconsideration in light of the altered circumstances resulting from the court's decision on the other issues.

Reid v. Reid

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot