51 Va. App. 170 - Broadhead v. Broadhead’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Once a child support award has been entered, only a showing of a material change in circumstances will justify modification of the support award. The moving party has the burden of proving a material change by a preponderance of the evidence.” Crabtree v. Crabtree, 17 Va.App. 81, 88 , 435 S.E.2d 883, 888 (1993). “[A] party seeking a reduction in support payments has additional burdens: ‘He must make a full and clear disclosure relating to his ability to pay. He must also show that his lack of ability to pay is not due to his own voluntary act or because of his neglect.’” Edwards v. Lowry, 232 Va. 110, 112-13 , 348 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1986) (emphasis added) (quoting Hammers v. Hammers, 216 Va. 30, 31-32 , 216 S.E.2d 20, 21 (1975)). Thus, in order to prove a material change in circumstances that justifies a reduction in support, a parent “must establish that he is not ‘voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily under employed.’ ” Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152, 154 , 409 S.E.2d 117, 119 (1991) (quoting Code § 20-108.1(B)(3)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Michael Hugh Palmer Murphy v. Corie Ann Murphy

2. “In considering the appropriate amount of child support to be paid, “a trial court ... is required to impute income to a parent who is found to be voluntarily underemployed.” Niemiec v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 27 Va.App. 446, 451 , 499 S.E.2d 576, 579 (1998) (citing Code § 20-108.1(B)(3)). In deciding whether income should be imputed to a parent, and the amount of such imputed income, “the trial court must ‘consider the [party’s] earning capacity, financial resources, education and training, ability to secure such education and training, and other factors relevant to the equities of the parents and the children.’ ” Blackburn v. Michael, 30 Va. App. 95, 102 , 515 S.E.2d 780, 784 (1999) (quoting Niemiec, 27 Va.App. at 451 , 499 S.E.2d at 579 ). The “court may [also] impute income based on evidence of recent past earnings.” Brody v. Brody, 16 Va.App. 647, 651 , 432 S.E.2d 20, 22 (1993).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Michael Hugh Palmer Murphy v. Corie Ann Murphy

3. “Although the word, “imputation” is used in this context, the burden of proof remains on husband, not on wife who is arguing for imputation, unlike cases asking for imputed income at the time of the initial award. Here, the trial court had previously set an amount of support, based on husband’s then-salary [his job at the time of the initial award]. Thus, wife’s request for imputation is basically an argument in support of continuing the initial award. Husband, on the other hand, is asking the court to reduce the previously set support amount. In meeting his burden on the motion to reduce the award support, husband must prove, among other issues, that he should not have his previous income from [his job at the time of the initial award] imputed to him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mukerji v. Mukerji