Philip deCamp v. Virginia deCamp

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that spouse was not required to return to work immediately upon divorce to avoid judicial imputation of income
• holding in a spousal support context that a trial court’s “determination that imputation was inappropriate in light of the conditions that existed at the time of the final decree” was not an abuse of discretion
• affirming the trial court’s decision declining to impute income to Mrs. deCamp because Mr. deCamp failed to present “the necessary testimony to establish a job that was available or the amount of money that she could earn in that job”
• “Rather, any decision to impute income [on the basis of voluntary underemployment] must be done within a review of all the statutory factors concerning spousal support.”
• “The purpose behind discovery rules is to eliminate ‘surprise at trial’ by ‘disclos[ing] all relevant and material evidence before trial in order that the trial may be an effective method for arriving at the truth.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Little v.274 Va. 697, 717 (2007

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).