Virginia Court of Appeals Upholds Pension & Spousal Support Rulings in Cox v. Cox
In an unpublished opinion issued February 3, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed a Chesterfield County Circuit Court ruling in Cox v. Cox, rejecting the husband’s challenges to the valuation of a cash balance pension plan, the trial court’s determination that his income was $75,000 per month, and an $11,000 monthly spousal support award.
The case arose from a long-term marriage with three children and focused heavily on the husband’s interest in CBH Holdings, LLC, a financial planning business. A major issue was a cash balance pension plan maintained through the business. The evidence showed that the plan was funded at unusually high levels over several years and functioned as a significant tax-advantaged retirement vehicle for the owners. CBH contributed about $3.5 million to the plan from 2017 through 2022, with more than $1.2 million contributed in 2022 alone. The wife’s expert testified that the plan had been overfunded by $1,200,600 through the end of 2021 and valued the husband’s share at $1,419,000 as of December 31, 2022.
On appeal, the husband argued that the trial court should have valued the marital share of the plan as of the parties’ separation date, July 16, 2021, rather than December 31, 2022. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The record showed that CBH typically funded the plan in the year after the year the contribution related to, so the later valuation date better captured what was earned during the marriage. The court specifically pointed to evidence that $500,000 of a $1 million loan obtained by the husband after separation was used to fund 2021 plan contributions.
The husband also argued that the pension contributions should not have been treated as voluntary contributions attributable to him. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument as well, noting evidence that the loans used to help fund the plan were in his name, that he handled day-to-day operations, and that he had primary responsibility for administering the pension plan. On that record, the trial court was entitled to find that he exercised substantial control over the plan and its funding.
That same pension issue carried over into support. Because the husband did not take a traditional salary from the business, both experts agreed that his income had to be “normalized.” The wife’s expert treated the substantial pension contributions as part of the husband’s overall income picture, reasoning that a business owner should not be able to divert a significant portion of earnings into a retirement vehicle and then claim those funds are unavailable for support. Using that approach, he concluded that the husband’s annual income was $900,000, or $75,000 per month. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in accepting that figure.
The husband’s double-counting and ERISA arguments failed too. The Court of Appeals found no improper windfall because the wife’s marital share of the plan was fixed as of December 31, 2022, while spousal support began later, on July 17, 2023. The court also rejected the argument that a future QDRO would necessarily violate ERISA, especially where no QDRO had yet been rejected and the trial court had reserved that issue if implementation problems arose.
On spousal support, the Court of Appeals likewise affirmed. Although there was evidence that the wife could earn more by working full-time as a pharmacist, the trial court declined to impute full-time income to her. The record showed that one child had Type 1 diabetes and had been hospitalized twice, while another had anxiety-related self-harming behavior. The trial court also considered the family’s standard of living during the marriage and the fact that the wife had remained home with the children. Under those circumstances, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the $11,000 monthly support award.
Cox v. Cox serves as a helpful reminder that courts may look beyond the label a business owner places on their compensation when determining income for support purposes. The decision also illustrates how closely courts may examine retirement contributions made through a closely held business, particularly when those contributions appear discretionary rather than mandatory. More broadly, the opinion underscores the wide latitude trial courts have when weighing earning capacity, the needs of the children, and the practical realities of the family’s financial circumstances.
Rob Hagy is a Virginia divorce and family law attorney serving Charlottesville, Virginia, and surrounding communities. You can see more content from Rob at www.charlottesvilledivorceattorney.com and at www.virginiafamilylawjournal.com.