McClure v. McClure

Fairfax County Circuit Court

McClure v. McClure

36 Va. Cir. 435, 1995 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1239

CourtFairfax County Circuit Court

DecidedJune 9, 1995

DocketCase No. (Chancery) 135969

StatusPublished

This text of 36 Va. Cir. 435 (McClure v. McClure) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McClure v. McClure, 36 Va. Cir. 435, 1995 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1239 (Va. Super. Ct. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Marcus D. Williams

Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is hereby denied for the same reasons stated in the April 21,1995, hearing.

Leave to amend pleadings shall be liberally granted pursuant to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:8. However, supplemental bills will not be allowed for the purpose of introducing a completely new case. Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 210 Va. 44, 46-47 (1969). Complainant’s request for equitable distribution is not an attempt to introduce a completely new case. Rather, complainant is seeking the same relief initially prayed for in her bill of complaint. However, the basis for which she seeks relief has changed because of events occurring after she filed her Bill of Complaint.

Complainant’s prayer for equitable distribution in her initial bill of complaint was ancillary to her prayer for a divorce. Because of the Guam decree of divorce which occurred subsequent to the filing of the bill of complaint, Complainant sought to amend her bill of complaint to change the basis of her prayer for equitable distribution.

One of the purposes of a supplemental bill is to bring into the case “new events referring to, and supporting, or affecting rights and interests already mentioned, which have arisen subsequently to the filing of the original bill.’’ Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 210 Va. 44, 48 (1969).

Since Complainant is merely changing the basis for the relief sought and is not attempting to introduce a new case, she should be permitted to amend her bill of complaint Therefore, the motion to reconsider is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge Marcus D. Williams

Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is hereby denied for the same reasons stated in the April 21,1995, hearing.

Leave to amend pleadings shall be liberally granted pursuant to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:8. However, supplemental bills will not be allowed for the purpose of introducing a completely new case. Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 210 Va. 44, 46-47 (1969). Complainant’s request for equitable distribution is not an attempt to introduce a completely new case. Rather, complainant is seeking the same relief initially prayed for in her bill of complaint. However, the basis for which she seeks relief has changed because of events occurring after she filed her Bill of Complaint.

Complainant’s prayer for equitable distribution in her initial bill of complaint was ancillary to her prayer for a divorce. Because of the Guam decree of divorce which occurred subsequent to the filing of the bill of complaint, Complainant sought to amend her bill of complaint to change the basis of her prayer for equitable distribution.

One of the purposes of a supplemental bill is to bring into the case “new events referring to, and supporting, or affecting rights and interests already mentioned, which have arisen subsequently to the filing of the original bill.’’ Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 210 Va. 44, 48 (1969).

Since Complainant is merely changing the basis for the relief sought and is not attempting to introduce a new case, she should be permitted to amend her bill of complaint Therefore, the motion to reconsider is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Va. Cir. 435, 1995 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclure-v-mcclure-vaccfairfax-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack