About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


37 U. Rich. L. Rev. 155 (2002-2003)
Family Law

handle is hein.journals/urich37 and id is 175 raw text is: FAMILY LAW Elizabeth P. Coughter * Ronald R. Tweel ** I. INTRODUCTION Developments in Virginia family law over the last year have created uncertainty as to a number of significant issues. Of these, the most significant is the enforceability of self-executing child support provisions in a divorced couple's property settlement agreement. The Supreme Court of Virginia and the Virginia Court of Appeals appear to be at odds on this issue. In Riggins v. O'Brien,1 the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the court of ap- peals in declining to give effect to a provision modifying child support found in the parties' property settlement agreement.2 During the same period of time, however, the Virginia Court of Appeals issued the decision of Shoup v. Shoup,3 which, in its re- hearing en banc, upheld a self-executing child support provision found in the parties' property settlement agreement.4 These two decisions are not entirely consistent in their reasoning and will be discussed below.5 Significant legislative amendments this past year include interlocutory appeals to the Virginia Court of Appeals,6 gross income adjustments for self-employment taxes in child support * Member, Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen & Tweel, P.C., Charlottesville, Vir- ginia. B.A., 1975, University of Virginia; J.D., 1982, University of Richmond School of Law. ** Member, Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen & Tweel, P.C., Charlottesville, Vir- ginia. B.S., 1968, Hampden-Sydney College, magna cum laude; J.D., 1971, University of Virginia School of Law. 1. 263 Va. 444, 559 S.E.2d 673 (2002). 2. Id. at 449, 559 S.E.2d at 676. 3. 37 Va. App. 240, 556 S.E.2d 783 (Ct. App. 2001). 4. Id. at 254, 556 S.E.2d at 790. 5. See infra Part II.A.1. 6. VA. CODE ANN. § 8.01-670.1 (Cum. Supp. 2002).