Tracy Austin v Thomas Albert Stanley

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton and Annunziata
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
TRACY AUSTIN
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 0043-00-4 	JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA
OCTOBER 17, 2000
THOMAS ALBERT STANLEY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Jane Marum Roush, Judge
Donna Porter Gair (Porter & Gair, P.C., on
briefs), for appellant.
Thomas A. Stanley, pro se.
Appellant, Tracy Austin, appeals from an order of the trial
court regarding modification of child support. 	She contends the
court erred in both imputing her pre-retirement income to her
and in relying on her new spouse's income as a basis for
deviating from the guideline support amount. 	She also contends
that no evidence supports the specific amount by which the court
deviated from the guideline amount and that the court failed to
state its findings in writing. 	Appellee, Thomas Stanley,
alleges that Austin failed to preserve these issues for review
in accordance with Rule 5A:18, and therefore this Court is
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

foreclosed from reviewing them on their merits. 	We agree with
Stanley's argument and affirm the decision of the trial court.
Rule 5A:18, states: 	"No ruling of the trial court . . .
will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection
was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the
ruling . . . ." 	At the bottom of the order of modification of
child support at issue in this case, in the section entitled,
"Objections of Complainant," Austin stated the following:
After deviating from the child support
guidelines by imputing full income to
Complainant, thus deeming Complainant to be
fully self-supporting, the Court on its own
motion further deviated by adding $250.00 to
amount due from Complainant each month based
on "substantial assistance from new husband
for basic needs, such as housing, food,
etc." without evidence or law to support
such a finding.
No other objection is cited in the record or the statement of
facts filed in support of this appeal.
We hold that Austin failed to preserve the issues she
raises on appeal. 	First, she failed to specify the grounds for
her objection to the trial court's ruling that based on
"substantial assistance from [Austin's] new husband" a deviation
in the amount of $250 was warranted. 	The "mere statement that
the judgment [of the trial court] . . . is contrary to the law
and the evidence is not sufficient to constitute a question to
be ruled upon on appeal." 	Rule 5A:18; see also Lee v. Lee, 12
Va. App. 512, 515, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991). 	In addition,
- 2 -

Austin made no objection whatsoever with respect to any failure
by the trial court to make written findings justifying its
departure from the guidelines. 	These issues were therefore not
properly preserved for appeal. 	See Rule 5A:18. 	Furthermore,
because good cause has not been shown and the record fails to
affirmatively disclose that a miscarriage of justice has
occurred, see Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436, 357
S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987), we decline to address the issues raised
and affirm the decision of the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 3 -