Roscoe L. Simpson v. Carol P. Simpson

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Frank, Clements and Haley
ROSCOE L. SIMPSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0983-05-1 	PER CURIAM
OCTOBER 11, 2005
CAROL P. SIMPSON
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON
Louis R. Lerner, Judge
(Roscoe L. Simpson, pro se, on brief).
No brief for appellee.
Roscoe L. Simpson (husband) appeals from the circuit court’s April 11, 2005 order
awarding Carol P. Simpson (wife) attorney’s fees for expenses incurred in defending husband’s
appeal of a previous order and finding him in contempt for failure to pay a previous attorney’s fees
award. On appeal, husband presents eleven questions corresponding to fourteen listed assignments
of error. In addition to challenging the court’s finding of contempt, husband raises numerous
challenges to the trial court’s previous orders. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we
conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the
trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
BACKGROUND
In Simpson v. Simpson, Record No. 0924-03-1 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2003), we
addressed husband’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of his “Motion for Relief and to Suspend
Court Orders.” Finding the court did not err in denying husband’s motion because the matters
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
raised in the motion had been previously adjudicated, we remanded the case to the trial court
only to determine an appropriate attorney’s fee award to wife for expenses incurred by her in
connection with that appeal. In its April 6, 2004 order, the trial court awarded wife attorney’s
fees in the amount of $1,000. At the motion hearing, husband again attempted to introduce
evidence on matters of which the court had finally disposed.
In Simpson v. Simpson, Record No. 0871-04-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2005), we
addressed husband’s challenge of the trial court’s April 6, 2004 order, addressing only his
challenge to the amount of the court’s attorney’s fees award and remanding the case to the trial
court to determine the proper amount to award wife for attorney’s fees incurred in defending that
appeal.
At an April 5, 2005 hearing, the trial court awarded wife $500 in attorney’s fees and
found husband in contempt for failure to pay previous attorney’s fees awards.
ANALYSIS
As we noted in our earlier opinions, “[r]es judicata precludes the re-litigation of a claim
or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached by a court having proper
jurisdiction over the matter.” Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va. App. 77, 81, 448 S.E.2d 666, 669
(1994)). Therefore, the trial court properly refused to address issues other than the attorney’s
fees award and the contempt allegation. Furthermore, the April 11, 2005 trial court order, which
husband appeals in this case, does not substantively address husband’s questions presented on
appeal.
To the extent husband challenges the court’s finding of contempt, we note husband has
failed to support his argument with any authority or citations to the record.
“‘Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record do not merit
appellate consideration.’” Budnick v. Budnick, 42 Va. App. 823, 833-34, 595 S.E.2d 50, 55

- 3 -
(2004) (quoting Roberts v. Roberts, 41 Va. App. 513, 527, 586 S.E.2d 290, 297 (2003)); see
Rule 5A:20(e) (requiring appellants to brief the “principles of law, the argument, and the
authorities relating to each question presented”).
Having presented no citations or authority in his brief in support of this contention,
husband has waived this argument on appeal and we need not address it. See Rule 5A:20(e).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.