Cirrito v. Cirrito

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the court erred in not making child support retroactive to the date of filing the original complaint for divorce, even where there was no prior pendente lite hearing, only an agreement by husband to maintain the family’s status quo
• finding that “[t]he record contain[ed] no evidence that the husband’s conduct compounded the cost of litigation requiring him to reimburse [the wife’s] fees”
• noting that “it is apparent the legislature intended that ‘shall’ [in Code § 20-108.1(B)] be mandatory” and “[t]here is no latitude under the statute”
• noting that donative intent is a question of fact
• finding the trial court erred in not making child support payments retroactive to the date of filing the original bill of complaint – the commencement of the proceeding – in the trial court
• “Statements unsupported by argument [or] authority . . . do not permit appellate consideration.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).