Domestic Relations: Evidence supported conclusion that husband committed adultery

Where record evidence supported the circuit court’s decision that husband committed adultery, its decision granting wife a divorce on grounds of adultery was affirmed.

Background

This appeal involves the divorce of Alberto Mireles and Morgan Mireles. The circuit court granted the divorce on the grounds of adultery and entered an order distributing the parties’ property.

Adultery

Husband argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed adultery. This court disagrees.

Husband started coming home late from work and getting late night messages and calls on his phone. Wife discovered that husband had made inappropriate comments to the suspected affair partner; comments that wife described as similar in nature to those he used to make to her. The nature of husband’s messages with Ramos, as well as the numerous late night phone calls, contradict husband’s argument that his relationship with Ramos was a work relationship. In addition, after the text messages and phone call where wife confronted Ramos, husband made an indirect admission, acknowledging that Ramos’s story was “somewhat” true.

Ramos admitted to wife that she was alone with husband numerous times. Ramos also sent numerous messages and made comments telling husband to be a man and tell wife the truth about them. Further, wife received a late-night phone call from husband, during which Ramos came on the phone, demonstrating that Ramos and husband were together, and Ramos told wife that she was “about to F your husband.” Husband said nothing in response to that comment.

Additionally, Ramos pled the Fifth Amendment to any question that touched on her interactions or relationship with husband. Husband denied the affair, but he was unable or unwilling to provide an explanation for the circumstances.

Equitable distribution

Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to find that wife’s assault and battery of husband constituted a negative nonmonetary contribution to the well-being of the family. The court disagrees.

Although a trial court is required to consider the factors set out in Code § 20-107.3(E), “it ‘need not quantify or elaborate exactly what weight was given to each of the factors’ as long as its ‘findings . . . [are] based upon credible evidence.’” That the court did not mention wife’s conduct or quantify the weight given does not mean that the court did not consider it.

Beyond that, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not find that wife’s conduct was a negative nonmonetary contribution. There is no evidence that wife’s assault and battery contributed to the breakdown of the well-being of the family or otherwise superseded the impact the adultery already played.

Tax refund

In preparation for trial, the parties filed property schedules identifying the assets for equitable distribution. After a hearing, the trial court entered a pretrial order, endorsed by both parties, identifying the assets that would be subject to equitable distribution at trial.

Neither the property schedules nor the pretrial order mentioned either husband or wife’s 2021 tax refunds. Though husband later sought to amend the pretrial order to include the parties’ 2021 tax refunds, the trial court found that the property “was known to the parties at the time of the hearing.” Nothing in the record leads this court to conclude that the trial court erred by denying the motion to amend and refusing to include the tax refund in the list of property to be distributed.

Further the pendente lite order, which was an agreed upon order, specifically provided that “[a]ll child tax credits shall be paid to Wife on or after December 3, 2021. Any such checks shall be endorsed by Husband to Wife.” The trial court interpreted this order to mean wife was permitted to claim the child related credits and keep the refund. Nothing in this language or the record suggests that the trial court’s interpretation of this order was unreasonable.

Attorneys’ fees

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering husband to pay $20,000 of wife’s attorney’s fees. Husband’s gross income of $8,895.15, was greater than wife’s gross income of $5,350. Husband’s adultery contributed to the dissolution of the marriage. Furthermore, husband increased the cost of litigation by failing to respond to discovery, resulting in three motions to compel.

Affirmed.

Mireles v. Mireles, Record No. 0935-24-1, Oct. 7, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Atlee Jr.). From the Circuit Court of Gloucester County (Shaw). Douglas J. Walter (Lisa A. Mallory; Clancy & Walter, P.L.L.C., on briefs), for appellant. Breckenridge Ingles (Martin, Ingles & Hensley, Ltd., on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-281. 17 pp.