Domestic Relations: Court finds that wife abandoned the marriage

Where the parties began living in separate houses, the wife had a very minor role in caring for husband during his terminal illness and wife began a separate romantic and sexual relationship mere months after separating from husband and maintained that relationship for years through his death, the circuit court’s finding that she abandoned the marriage was affirmed.

Background

Sue Anderson Teel and Gene “Bull” Teel Sue and Bull married in 1988 and had no children. They never divorced. In March 2022, Bull died testate of what Sue described as “farmer’s lung.” In his will, Bull declared that he “ha[d] been separated [from Sue] for many years” and that “she willfully deserted the marriage and abandoned [him] and the desertion and abandonment ha[d] continued throughout [his] lifetime.” Accordingly, the will “ma[d]e no provision for” her and bequeathed Bull’s entire estate to his brother, William, who later qualified as the estate’s executor.

In March 2023, Sue filed a complaint to determine her elective share of the augmented estate. William opposed Sue receiving an elective share, claiming that she had abandoned the marriage. Following a bench trial, the trial court found for William.

Analysis

There was ample evidence that Sue intended to abandon the normal indicia of the couple’s marriage—and that she retained that intent through Bull’s death. The couple stopped living together and began living in separate houses. There was evidence that they saw each other infrequently and generally only to accomplish some particular task, such as exchanging the dogs.

And the testimony indicated that Sue had, at best, a very minor role in caring for Bull during his terminal illness that was no greater than many of his friends and family members. Most importantly, Sue began a separate romantic and sexual relationship mere months after separating from Bull and maintained that relationship for years through Bull’s death.

Several witnesses testified that Sue’s relationship with Brown caused Bull great pain. Bull’s feeling of abandonment, as expressed in his will, corroborates that testimony. And Sue admitted that she and Bull had never discussed or agreed that they would be free to date other people outside the marriage.

Further, she touted her relationship with Brown on social media for the world to see. The factfinder could easily conclude that Sue’s decision to move out of the marital home, begin a long-term romantic relationship with Brown, sharply reduce her contact with Bull and promote her connection with Brown to the world—when viewed together—demonstrated an intent to terminate the “normal indicia” of her marriage to Bull.

Sue’s testimony does not compel a different result. For one thing, the trial court was not required to credit Sue’s testimony. But even if the court had credited Sue’s testimony, Sue made clear that she did not intend to get back together with Bull and had left him the ultimate decision of whether to pursue a divorce.

The factfinder could view the couple’s continued comingling of finances and Sue’s testimony that she “didn’t see a need to be divorced” as simply a matter of convenience. The fact that Sue and Bull never got legally divorced, referenced heavily throughout Sue’s brief, cannot be dispositive of whether she had abandoned the marriage under Code § 64.2-308.14(E). After all, that code section can only apply where there has been no divorce. Moreover, to the extent the parties’ financial comingling and health insurance arrangements constituted “financial support,” the caselaw does not indicate that any lingering support, no matter how minimal or vestigial, precludes a finding of abandonment if all other indicia of the marital relationship have collapsed.

Here, there is abundant evidence that Sue’s conduct demonstrated a “termination of the normal indicia of a marital relationship combined with an intent to abandon the marital relationship.” Similarly, the record fully supports the trial court’s conclusion that, after the 2016 separation, Sue stopped caring for Bull “in the typical marital sense.”

As Sue herself testified, she and Bull “went back to being friends” after the separation, suggesting a reversion to a pre-marital state. Once Sue left the marital home, she and Bull never talked of getting back together. Within months she was in a romantic relationship with another man—and Sue observed that she and Bull “seemed to get along” better as friends.

Affirmed.

Teel v. Teel, Record No. 0053-25-3, Nov. 18, 2025. CAV (Friedman). From the Circuit Court of Montgomery County (Turk). Dennis P. Brumberg (John R. Langley; BWLaw PLC, on briefs), for appellant. Kyle McNew (H. Gregory Campbell; John S. Huntington; MichieHamlett PLLC; Campbell & Ackerman; Huntington, Huntington & Huntington, PLLC, on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-329. 9 pp.