COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
CALVIN CORNELL RUFFIN, SR.
v. Record No. 1792-99-1
ANDREANIA (PACE) RUFFIN MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM ANDREANIA (PACE) RUFFIN FEBRUARY 22, 2000
v. Record No. 1804-99-1
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS Verbena M. Askew, Judge
(Frederic L. Moschel; Moschel, Gallo & Clancy, L.L.C., on briefs), for Calvin Cornell Ruffin, Sr.
(Vicki Beard, on briefs), for Andreania (Pace) Ruffin.
Calvin Cornell Ruffin, Sr. and Andreania (Pace) Ruffin appeal
the final decree of divorce entered by the circuit court. In his
appeal, husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding
wife $1,000 in monthly spousal support. In her appeal, wife
contends that the trial court erred by (1) failing to find that
husband held his lottery winnings in a constructive trust for the
benefit of wife and the parties' two children; (2) failing to find
that husband was at fault in the dissolution of the marriage; (3)
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. failing to order husband to pay all outstanding marital debt; and
(4) failing to award wife more monthly spousal support. Upon
reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that
these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm
the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Background
The parties married in 1989, had two children, and separated
in November 1995. The wife filed a bill of complaint for divorce
on August 19, 1996. Based upon evidence presented at a hearing
held on September 19, 1996, the trial court entered a pendente
lite order on October 1, 1996, directing husband to pay $120 a
week in child support and $80 a week in spousal support, beginning
September 20, 1996. Husband did not make any support payments
until January 1997. On September 28, 1996, husband won $4.9
million in a lottery, with a gross payout for twenty years
exceeding $243,000 per annum. After husband claimed his winnings
in January 1997, wife filed a motion to increase support. By
order entered March 30, 1998, the trial court ordered husband to
pay $2,446 in monthly child support. Monthly spousal support
remained $344, and the trial court ordered husband to pay $823 to
wife for payment of over $1,100 in monthly marital debts including
the mortgage. The trial court left to be resolved at a later
hearing whether the additional payment of $823 was to be
characterized as additional spousal support.
- 2 - By order entered April 30, 1997, the trial court referred the
matter to a commissioner in chancery to determine the grounds for
divorce, equitable distribution and support. The commissioner's
hearing was held on February 17, 1998, and the report filed with
the court on May 4, 1998. The commissioner recommended that
husband be granted a divorce on the ground of a one-year
separation. The commissioner also recommended that wife receive
$750 in monthly spousal support for a period of four years; that
the parties split the marital debt equally; and that wife's
request for the imposition of a constructive trust on husband's
lottery winnings be denied. Both parties filed exceptions to the
report. In its decree a vinculo matrimonii entered July 2, 1999,
the trial court granted wife's exception to the commissioner's
recommended spousal support award. The trial court awarded wife
$1,000 in permanent monthly spousal support. The trial court
otherwise accepted the commissioner's report. Both parties
appealed.
Constructive Trust
Wife contends that the trial court erred by failing to find
that husband's lottery winnings were subject to a constructive
trust for her benefit and that of the parties' children. Wife
argues that husband used his last available funds to purchase the
lottery tickets instead of paying his court-ordered child and
spousal support. The commissioner found no evidence of fraud or
unjust enrichment warranting the imposition of a constructive
- 3 - trust on husband's winnings. The trial court agreed with that
finding.
We find no error in the trial court's determination.
"'Constructive trusts arise, independently of the intention of the parties, by construction of law; being fastened upon the conscience of him who has the legal estate, in order to prevent what otherwise would be a fraud. They occur not only where property has been acquired by fraud or improper means, but also where it has been fairly and properly acquired, but it is contrary to the principles of equity that it should be retained, at least for the acquirer's own benefit.'"
Rash v. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co., 251 Va. 281, 287, 467 S.E.2d
791, 795 (1996) (citations and emphasis omitted). "[T]he burden
of establishing the grounds for the imposition of a constructive
trust [is] by clear and convincing evidence." Hill v. Brooks, 253
Va. 168, 174, 482 S.E.2d 816, 820 (1997). "Moreover, in order to
be entitled to the benefit of a constructive trust, a claimant's
money must be 'distinctly traced' into the chose in action, fund,
or other property which is to be made the subject of the trust."
Crestar Bank v. Williams, 250 Va. 198, 204, 462 S.E.2d 333, 335
(1995).
Wife contends that the $2 husband used to purchase the
winning lottery ticket on September 28, 1996 were already owed to
her and their children pursuant to the pendente lite order of the
trial court at the September 19, 1996 hearing. She argues that a
constructive trust arose as of September 20, 1996, the date when
- 4 - his first support payments were due. 1 However, no fund existed on
that date upon which to impose a constructive trust, as husband
did not win the lottery until eight days later. It is true that
husband's first and second weekly payments were outstanding on the
day husband purchased the winning lottery ticket. However, as
acknowledged by wife, husband had limited funds on September 20
due in part to the fact he recently had purchased a car. Although
husband's car payments were undoubtedly a greater drain on his
ability to pay support than the $2 he used to purchase the lottery
tickets, wife argued that the money husband used to purchase the
tickets was traceable solely to funds obligated for support.
While husband's failure to pay his court-ordered support was
reprehensible, wife failed to present sufficient evidence of fraud
or unjust enrichment to warrant the imposition of a constructive
trust on his lottery winnings. Husband purchased the lottery
tickets pursuant to his habit established throughout the marriage.
As a result of his winnings, he was capable of providing greater
financial support to his children than at any time during the
marriage. We cannot say that husband's good fortune so reeked of
injustice as to require the imposition of a constructive trust on
his lottery winnings.
1 This ruling was subsequently memorialized in an order entered October 1, 1996.
- 5 - Grounds of Divorce
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
CALVIN CORNELL RUFFIN, SR.
v. Record No. 1792-99-1
ANDREANIA (PACE) RUFFIN MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM ANDREANIA (PACE) RUFFIN FEBRUARY 22, 2000
v. Record No. 1804-99-1
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS Verbena M. Askew, Judge
(Frederic L. Moschel; Moschel, Gallo & Clancy, L.L.C., on briefs), for Calvin Cornell Ruffin, Sr.
(Vicki Beard, on briefs), for Andreania (Pace) Ruffin.
Calvin Cornell Ruffin, Sr. and Andreania (Pace) Ruffin appeal
the final decree of divorce entered by the circuit court. In his
appeal, husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding
wife $1,000 in monthly spousal support. In her appeal, wife
contends that the trial court erred by (1) failing to find that
husband held his lottery winnings in a constructive trust for the
benefit of wife and the parties' two children; (2) failing to find
that husband was at fault in the dissolution of the marriage; (3)
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. failing to order husband to pay all outstanding marital debt; and
(4) failing to award wife more monthly spousal support. Upon
reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that
these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm
the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Background
The parties married in 1989, had two children, and separated
in November 1995. The wife filed a bill of complaint for divorce
on August 19, 1996. Based upon evidence presented at a hearing
held on September 19, 1996, the trial court entered a pendente
lite order on October 1, 1996, directing husband to pay $120 a
week in child support and $80 a week in spousal support, beginning
September 20, 1996. Husband did not make any support payments
until January 1997. On September 28, 1996, husband won $4.9
million in a lottery, with a gross payout for twenty years
exceeding $243,000 per annum. After husband claimed his winnings
in January 1997, wife filed a motion to increase support. By
order entered March 30, 1998, the trial court ordered husband to
pay $2,446 in monthly child support. Monthly spousal support
remained $344, and the trial court ordered husband to pay $823 to
wife for payment of over $1,100 in monthly marital debts including
the mortgage. The trial court left to be resolved at a later
hearing whether the additional payment of $823 was to be
characterized as additional spousal support.
- 2 - By order entered April 30, 1997, the trial court referred the
matter to a commissioner in chancery to determine the grounds for
divorce, equitable distribution and support. The commissioner's
hearing was held on February 17, 1998, and the report filed with
the court on May 4, 1998. The commissioner recommended that
husband be granted a divorce on the ground of a one-year
separation. The commissioner also recommended that wife receive
$750 in monthly spousal support for a period of four years; that
the parties split the marital debt equally; and that wife's
request for the imposition of a constructive trust on husband's
lottery winnings be denied. Both parties filed exceptions to the
report. In its decree a vinculo matrimonii entered July 2, 1999,
the trial court granted wife's exception to the commissioner's
recommended spousal support award. The trial court awarded wife
$1,000 in permanent monthly spousal support. The trial court
otherwise accepted the commissioner's report. Both parties
appealed.
Constructive Trust
Wife contends that the trial court erred by failing to find
that husband's lottery winnings were subject to a constructive
trust for her benefit and that of the parties' children. Wife
argues that husband used his last available funds to purchase the
lottery tickets instead of paying his court-ordered child and
spousal support. The commissioner found no evidence of fraud or
unjust enrichment warranting the imposition of a constructive
- 3 - trust on husband's winnings. The trial court agreed with that
finding.
We find no error in the trial court's determination.
"'Constructive trusts arise, independently of the intention of the parties, by construction of law; being fastened upon the conscience of him who has the legal estate, in order to prevent what otherwise would be a fraud. They occur not only where property has been acquired by fraud or improper means, but also where it has been fairly and properly acquired, but it is contrary to the principles of equity that it should be retained, at least for the acquirer's own benefit.'"
Rash v. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co., 251 Va. 281, 287, 467 S.E.2d
791, 795 (1996) (citations and emphasis omitted). "[T]he burden
of establishing the grounds for the imposition of a constructive
trust [is] by clear and convincing evidence." Hill v. Brooks, 253
Va. 168, 174, 482 S.E.2d 816, 820 (1997). "Moreover, in order to
be entitled to the benefit of a constructive trust, a claimant's
money must be 'distinctly traced' into the chose in action, fund,
or other property which is to be made the subject of the trust."
Crestar Bank v. Williams, 250 Va. 198, 204, 462 S.E.2d 333, 335
(1995).
Wife contends that the $2 husband used to purchase the
winning lottery ticket on September 28, 1996 were already owed to
her and their children pursuant to the pendente lite order of the
trial court at the September 19, 1996 hearing. She argues that a
constructive trust arose as of September 20, 1996, the date when
- 4 - his first support payments were due. 1 However, no fund existed on
that date upon which to impose a constructive trust, as husband
did not win the lottery until eight days later. It is true that
husband's first and second weekly payments were outstanding on the
day husband purchased the winning lottery ticket. However, as
acknowledged by wife, husband had limited funds on September 20
due in part to the fact he recently had purchased a car. Although
husband's car payments were undoubtedly a greater drain on his
ability to pay support than the $2 he used to purchase the lottery
tickets, wife argued that the money husband used to purchase the
tickets was traceable solely to funds obligated for support.
While husband's failure to pay his court-ordered support was
reprehensible, wife failed to present sufficient evidence of fraud
or unjust enrichment to warrant the imposition of a constructive
trust on his lottery winnings. Husband purchased the lottery
tickets pursuant to his habit established throughout the marriage.
As a result of his winnings, he was capable of providing greater
financial support to his children than at any time during the
marriage. We cannot say that husband's good fortune so reeked of
injustice as to require the imposition of a constructive trust on
his lottery winnings.
1 This ruling was subsequently memorialized in an order entered October 1, 1996.
- 5 - Grounds of Divorce
Wife also contends that the trial court erred in failing to
award her a divorce on the ground of desertion. The commissioner
recommended that husband be granted a divorce on the basis of a
one-year separation. The trial court accepted that
recommendation. Assuming without deciding that there was
sufficient evidence to support a finding of desertion by husband,
"[i]t is well established that 'where dual or multiple grounds for
divorce exist, the trial judge can use his sound discretion to
select the grounds upon which he will grant the divorce.'"
Williams v. Williams, 14 Va. App. 217, 220, 415 S.E.2d 252, 253
(1992) (citation omitted). Evidence established that the parties
lived separate and apart in excess of one year intending the
separation to be final. Therefore, there was evidence supporting
the trial court's decision. We find no abuse of discretion in the
trial court's decision not to award wife a divorce on the ground
of desertion.
Marital Debts
Wife contends that the trial court erred by failing to assign
approximately $8,000 in marital debts to husband. Under Code
§ 20-107.3(C), the trial court has the authority "to apportion and
order the payment of the debts of the parties, or either of them,
that are incurred prior to the dissolution of the marriage, based
upon the factors listed in subsection E." "[D]ecisions concerning
equitable distribution rest within the sound discretion of the
- 6 - trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless plainly
wrong or unsupported by the evidence." McDavid v. McDavid, 19 Va.
App. 406, 407-08, 451 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1994). There was no
evidence that the debts were incurred solely for the benefit of
one party. Wife's argument, distilled to its essence, is that
husband's post-separation lottery winnings give him greater
resources from which to pay these debts. We find that argument
unpersuasive, and find no error in the trial court's decision to
require the parties to share the marital debts equally.
Spousal Support
Finally, wife contends that the trial court erred by failing
to award her more spousal support. The trial court considered
both the statutory factors and the evidence before making its
award. While wife faced greater expenses with the prospective
relocation to a larger residence, she also had the greater income
throughout the marriage. In fact, wife was the primary wage
earner. We find no error in the trial court's refusal to award a
greater amount of spousal support.
Likewise, we find no error in the trial court's requirement
that husband pay wife $1,000 per month permanent spousal support.
The trial court's determinations, supported by the evidence,
imposed no bar to wife's entitlement to support. The amount
ordered is consistent with her proven need and husband's proven
ability to pay.
- 7 - Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
- 8 -