Razieh Shoustari v Ali A Zamani

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Elder, Annunziata and Agee
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
RAZIEH SHOUSTARI
OPINION BY
v. 	Record No. 0399-02-4 	JUDGE G. STEVEN AGEE
DECEMBER 31, 2002
ALI A. ZAMANI
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Gaylord L. Finch, Jr., Judge
Patrick G. Merkle for appellant.
No brief for appellee.
Razieh Shoustari ("Shoustari") appeals a decision of the
Fairfax County Circuit Court denying her an award of spousal
support. 	We find no error in the decision of the trial court and,
therefore, affirm its decree for the reasons stated below.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Shoustari and Ali A. Zamani ("Zamani") participated in a
marriage ceremony in Tehran, Iran on May 18, 1996. 	At the time of
the ceremony Zamani was married to another woman.
When Shoustari discovered Zamani's other marriage, she
requested the Fairfax County Circuit Court in her bill of
complaint to enter a decree of annulment based "on grounds of void
marriage." 	Zamani admitted in his answer that he was married to
another woman and that his marriage to Shoustari was void.

Pursuant to Code § 20-89.1, the trial court entered the
requested decree providing the marriage entered into by the
parties "is hereby declared a nullity and is determined to be void
ab initio." 	The trial court also denied Shoustari's request for
spousal support on the ground that spousal support may not be
awarded in the case of a void marriage. 	Shoustari appeals the
decision as to the denial of spousal support.
II. 	ANALYSIS
Zamani was married to another woman at the time he married
Shoustari. 	The parties agreed with the court's decree that the
Zamani/Shoustari marriage was a bigamous marriage and therefore
void under the plain language of Code § 20-43. 	"All marriages
which are prohibited by law on account of either of the parties
having a former wife or husband then living shall be absolutely
void, without any decree of divorce, or other legal process."
Code § 20-43.
As no marriage existed between the parties, Shoustari
acquired no legal rights thereby. 	As we plainly held in
Kleinfield v. Veruki, 7 Va. App. 183, 372 S.E.2d 407 (1988), this
means there is no right to a spousal support award.
[A] bigamous marriage is void and it confers
no legal rights to the parties. 	It is
"contrary to the laws of Virginia and public
policy." 	Only "upon decreeing the
dissolution of a marriage" do the courts of
Virginia have jurisdiction to award spousal
support or equitable distribution. 	Code
- 2 -

§§ 20-107.1 and 20-107.3. 	Since the
marriage . . . was void and, thus, there was
no marriage, the trial court had no
authority to award spousal support or make
an equitable distribution award. 	There is
no authority for the parties by their
actions outside of the law to invest the
courts with power to treat a relationship as
a lawful marriage.
Kleinfield, 7 Va. App. at 190, 372 S.E.2d at 411 (citations
omitted) (emphasis added).
Shoustari argues that the Supreme Court of Virginia's
decision in Henderson v. Henderson, 187 Va. 121, 46 S.E.2d 10
(1948), should lead to a different result. 	We disagree.
Henderson addressed only child support in the context of
children of a void marriage and did not consider spousal support
in any manner.
She also argues that the doctrine of equitable estoppel
creates an independent right of spousal support. 	Shoustari did
not plead equitable estoppel as a ground for the award of
spousal support in the trial court. 	The record contains no
reference to any argument related to equitable estoppel being
made to the trial court. 	We are therefore barred from
considering such an argument for the first time on appeal by
Rule 5A:18. 	See Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308,
494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998) ("The Court of Appeals will not
- 3 -

consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the
trial court.").1
Finally, Shoustari contends that the authority of the trial
court to act under Code §§ 20-107.1, 20-107.2 and 20-107.3 upon
the "dissolution of a marriage" implies a right of spousal
support in this case. 	Again, we disagree. 	As Kleinfield
clearly provides, there was never a marriage at law between the
parties. 	7 Va. App. at 190, 372 S.E.2d at 411. 	Accordingly,
there is no "marriage" for the court to dissolve under any of
the foregoing statutes. 	Further, Code § 20-43 unequivocally
provides that a bigamous marriage, as in the case at bar, "shall
be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal
process."
As Shoustari has no basis at law to claim spousal support
from Zamani, the decision of the trial court denying a spousal
support award is affirmed.
Affirmed.
1 Shoustari's equitable estoppel argument is without basis
in the statute or case law. 	The creation of such an independent
ground for award of spousal support is a matter of policy which
is the prerogative of the legislative branch of government. 	The
General Assembly has made no such provision. 	See Wood v. Bd. of
Supervisors of Halifax Cty., 236 Va. 104, 115, 372 S.E.2d 611,
618 (1988) ("[I]t is the responsibility of the legislature, not
the judiciary, to formulate public policy, to strike the
appropriate balance between competing interests, and to devise
standards for implementation.").
- 4 -