Introduction 

The Court of Appeals reaffirmed that equitable distribution depends entirely on the evidence presented at trial, and the party seeking a monetary award must prove both the classification and the value of the property in question. 

In Yasmeen v. Haider (Record No. 2245-23, Va. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2025), the Court of Appeals of Virginia reaffirmed that equitable distribution determinations rest upon the evidence presented at trial - and that the party seeking a monetary award bears the burden of proving the classification and value of property. The Court upheld the Fairfax County Circuit Court’s ruling after finding that the wife failed to present sufficient evidence regarding her husband’s alleged real estate holdings in Pakistan and had waived her objection to the husband’s testimony on non-monetary contributions. 

Background 

The circuit court declined to attribute value to the alleged Pakistani property because neither party provided credible documentation, valuation, or proof sufficient to support distribution. 

Following sixteen years of marriage, Tahira Yasmeen (“Wife”) and Sajjad Haider (“Husband”) separated in 2022 and filed for divorce in Fairfax County. Each party sought equitable distribution of the marital estate, and Wife requested permanent spousal support. At trial, both parties testified as to their respective incomes and assets. Husband, a truck driver, admitted to transferring more than $50,000 to his family in Pakistan, some of which he claimed helped build a home jointly owned with his siblings. Wife alleged that she contributed $7,000 toward purchasing that same property, but she provided no documentation or valuation evidence. 

When Husband began testifying about his non-monetary contributions to the marriage - such as maintaining the household - the Wife objected, citing nondisclosure in discovery. The circuit court overruled her objection but limited the scope of Husband’s testimony. Wife did not renew or continue her objection when Husband later elaborated on his household contributions. 

The circuit court found that both parties’ testimony regarding finances lacked credibility, noting “limited credible evidence as to the marital assets.” Without proof of the Pakistan property’s value, location, or condition, the court declined to make any distribution related to that asset. Each party retained its respective vehicles and bank accounts. The court also ordered Husband to pay $500 per month in spousal support and $8,500 in attorney’s fees to Wife.

 

Legal Analysis 

The Court held that the Wife both waived her evidentiary objection and failed to meet the statutory burden of proving the value of the foreign property, leaving the trial court free to enter a decree without valuing that asset. 

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in full. 

First, the Court held that the Wife had waived her objection to Husband’s testimony regarding non-monetary contributions. Although she initially objected, she did not renew that objection later in the trial nor request a continuing objection. By allowing similar testimony to proceed unchallenged, Wife forfeited her right to raise the issue on appeal. 

Second, the Court ruled that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to make a monetary award for the Pakistani property. Under Virginia Code § 20-107.3(E), a party seeking equitable distribution must provide credible evidence to classify and value each asset. Citing Torian v. Torian, 38 Va. App. 167 (2002), and Bowers v. Bowers, 4 Va. App. 610 (1987), the Court reaffirmed that when parties fail to present sufficient valuation evidence despite a reasonable opportunity to do so, the court may still enter an equitable distribution decree without valuing every item of property. 

The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s handling of spousal support or attorney fees. It emphasized that credibility determinations and factual findings (including whether family financial assistance constituted gifts or loans) are matters entrusted to the trial court, not the appellate court. 

Implications 

The decision reinforces that equitable distribution is a fact-driven process requiring timely objections and credible valuation evidence, particularly when foreign or inaccessible assets are involved. 

Yasmeen v. Haider underscores a recurring lesson in Virginia family law: equitable distribution awards depend on evidence, not allegations. The ruling reaffirms that equitable distribution is not an opportunity for speculation but a fact-driven process governed by each party’s diligence in presenting credible evidence. 

3 Takeaways: 

1. Burden of Proof: The party seeking a distribution of property must prove both its value and ownership. Unsupported assertions about foreign or inaccessible assets are insufficient.

2. Timely Objection: Failure to make or renew objections during trial can forfeit appellate review.

3. Trial Court Discretion: Appellate courts defer to circuit judges who directly assess witness credibility, particularly in spousal support and evidentiary disputes. 

Smith Strong Can Help

 

Smith Strong assists clients in tracing, valuing, and documenting assets - domestic or foreign - to meet Virginia’s evidentiary standards in equitable distribution proceedings. 

Equitable distribution cases often involve complex asset tracing and evidentiary challenges, particularly when foreign property or disputed financial accounts are involved. At Smith Strong, PLC, our attorneys guide clients through the discovery, valuation, and documentation process to ensure their rights are fully protected under Virginia law. To schedule a confidential consultation, contact our Richmond office at (804) 325-1245 or in Williamsburg at (757) 941-4298.