Domestic Relations: Wife’s challenge to property division fails

Where the trial court examined the evidence and considered the statutory factors in distributing marital assets, its decision was affirmed.

Background     

Mary Ann Radtke appeals the circuit court’s equitable distribution award. She asserts that the court erred by considering equity in real property that was not part of the parties’ marital estate. She also claims that the award inequitably favors Thomas M. Radtke Jr.

Analysis

Wife contends that the court erred by considering the equity in the Beale Street Property because it was not a part of the marital estate at the time of trial and half of the equity in the property belonged to a son from a previous relationship, Dwayne Wait, before the parties separated. She alternatively argues that the court erred by enforcing the parties’ agreement to transfer the Bell Ringer and Beale Street Properties to their children because husband failed to transfer the Bell Ringer Property to their daughter, Shannon.

“Virginia law does not establish a presumption of equal distribution of marital assets.” When viewed in the light most favorable to husband, the record supports the court’s conclusion that the parties intended to convey the Bell Ringer Property to husband and Shannon and the Beale Street Property to wife and Dwayne.

Husband carried out the parties’ intentions with respect to the Beale Street Property by transferring it to wife and Dwayne. After considering the evidence, the court found it equitable to honor the parties’ intentions by removing wife from the title to the Bell Ringer Property and to credit her with an equal share of the equity in both properties. The court’s award equally divided the parties’ interests in both properties.

Wife’s decision to transfer her interest in the Beale Street Property before trial does not render the court’s monetary award inequitable. Rather, had the court failed to consider wife’s interest in the Beale Street Property, it would have created a windfall in her favor because her interest in the property was part of the marital estate. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion; the record supports the conclusion that it properly examined the evidence and considered the statutory factors in fashioning its award.

Affirmed.

Radke v. Radke, Record No. 1114-24-2, Sept. 16, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (per curiam). From the Circuit Court of Spotsylvania County (Glover). (Monroe A. Windsor; Compton & Duling, L.C., on briefs), for appellant. (Brandy M. Poss; Barnes & Diehl, P.C., on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-257. 6 pp.