The applicant is advised to order her counsel (1) not to provide third party information on the amount of a transaction proposed to her by the defendant; (2) in this case, do not disclose an accurate or partial count to third parties; (3) do not transfer to third parties the revenues or funds that can be paid to you; (4) third non-indication as to whether a monetary agreement has been reached; (5) third non-information on the nature or facts underlying one of the original actions between the parties on the merits of the case. 2000—Looney v. Looney, 32 Va. App. 135Mother agreed to reduce child care in agreement and requested full support through guidelines. The Court of Appeal upheld the deviation downstream of the Tribunal in accordance with the agreement. 2013–Howard v. Thompson, Va. Ct. of Appeals, Unpublished, No. 2264-12-4.Where the parties` Property Settlement Agreement provided attorney`s fees for a prevailing party in enforcement proceedings, the trial court diling in holding the Husband wholly responsible for wife es attorney`s fees where the Wife did not prevail on each motion before the trial court. 2009—Murphy v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Dep`t of Social Srvc`s, et al., Va.
Ct. of Appeals, Unpublished, No. 1060-09-4Trial court did not erin in the calculation of the paternal daycare serl-dieren using the uniform amount for both children for each month of non-payment, despite the fact that the eldest child was emancipated about 18 months before the hearing. The parties reached a settlement agreement establishing uniform support for both children and stated that „custody of a child will continue to be paid until that child is [emancipated].“ The agreement also established that each party had the right to request a new calculation under Virginia law. The Court of Appeal found that such a language was not self-referring and recalculating, which left no specific language in the agreement on how the parties should recalculate aid when the oldest child was emancipated.