Court of Appeals of Virginia
The circuit court lacked authority in awarding a divorcing wife a lump sum award of $150,000 in “equitable restitution.”
Circuit courts are limited to the authority granted to them by statute. Here, the circuit court acknowledged fashioning a remedy neither of equitable distribution nor of spousal support, but instead of “equitable restitution.” But it had no authority to make this award in the context of a divorce proceeding. The circuit court’s decision is reversed, and its award of $150,000 is vacated.
Divorcing parties intended for an early 2017 agreement to be a comprehensive resolution of all the matters presented in this case. A Roth IRA was not addressed by the parties’ agreement, so the circuit court erred by dividing it between the parties.
But the circuit court didn’t err in dividing the escrow refund checks equally between the parties as proceeds of the sale of the parties’ real property. Husband was not entitled to a credit for the previous $20,000 payment that he made for the wife’s attorney’s fees pursuant to their agreement.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Evidence was sufficient to affirm the appellant’s conviction for driving after forfeiture of her license, her third such offense within ten years.
When asked for her identification during the traffic stop, the appellant provided the deputy with an “ID card.” Possession of a special identification card supports the finding that the appellant did not have a driver’s license in her possession. A reasonable fact finder could therefore conclude that the appellant’s production of a special identification card during a traffic stop signifies her knowledge that her driver’s license was revoked at that time.
U.S. District Court – Virginia Eastern
Exercising proper jurisdiction, the court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the government from awarding a food-services contract to a company other than the plaintiff.
Federal law requires priority for blind persons in the operation of vending facilities on federal property. Under those laws, the plaintiffs have been providing food services under a contract at Fort Benning for 15 years. It appears they have a high likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the government’s decision to award the contract to another company, allegedly due to high prices, was contrary to law.
Categories: Daily Dockets