Karen Marie King v Roy Lee King

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINA

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank

KAREN MARIE KI NG
MEMORANDUM OPI Ni ON’
Vv. Record No. 1827- 99-2 PER CURI AM
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
ROY LEE KING

FROM THE CI RCU'T COURT OF DI NW DDI E COUNTY
Thomas V. Warren, Judge
(J. Kevin Clarke, on briefs), for appellant.
(Sharon Gegory Jacobs; Mrchower, Luxton &
Wialey, on brief), for appellee.

Karen Mrrie King (Wfe) appeals the final decree of divorce
entered by the circuit court. Wfe contends that the trial court
(1) failed to include witten findings supporting its denial of
wfe's request for spousal support, in violation of Code
§ 20-107.1(F); (2) failed to classify and value the parties'
property, in violation of Code § 20-107.3(A); and (3) erred by
relying on insufficient evidence to support its finding that the
parties resolved their property rights. Wfe also appeals the
decision of the trial court denying her Mtion to Reopen Case or
to Suspend Final Decree. Upon reviewng the record and briefs of

the parties, we conclude that this appeal is wthout nerit.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.
See Rule 5A:27.
Roy Lee King (husband) filed his bill of complaint on August
24, 1998. 	Evidence was submitted by deposition. 	The record on
appeal includes wife's written statement of facts and husband's
objections thereto.
The record demonstrates that husband's counsel sent to wife's
counsel a copy of the depositions and proposed final decree of
divorce on April 20, 1999. 	Husband's counsel sent two additional
letters, but received no response. 	Wife's counsel failed to
appear at a meeting scheduled for April 28, 1999, to discuss
issues relating to the divorce. 	By notice filed June 16, 1999,
husband's counsel notified wife's counsel of the July 2, 1999
hearing for presentation of the final decree of divorce, along
with a copy of the draft order, in compliance with Rule 1:13.
Neither wife nor her counsel appeared at the hearing on July 2,
1999. 	Wife noted no exceptions to the final decree, which was
entered the day of the hearing. 	Wife filed her motion to reopen
the case or suspend the final decree on July 26, 1999, more than
twenty-one days after entry of the final decree.
Wife failed to preserve any objections to the final decree.
Rule 5A:18 provides that "[n]o 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, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of
- 2 -

Appeals to attain the ends of justice." 	"The purpose of Rule
5A:18 is to provide the trial court with the opportunity to remedy
any error so that an appeal is not necessary." 	Knight v.
Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 207, 216, 443 S.E.2d 165, 170 (1994);
see Newsome v. Newsome, 18 Va. App. 22, 24-25, 441 S.E.2d 346, 347
(1994). 	The record demonstrates that husband's counsel provided a
copy of the draft final decree to wife's counsel in mid-April,
more than two months before entry of the decree. 	Neither wife nor
her counsel appeared at the depositions, and wife submitted no
evidence or depositions on her own behalf. 	Accordingly,
Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of wife's first three
questions presented on appeal. 	Moreover, the record does not
reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice
exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
After filing her answer and cross-bill of complaint, wife
and her counsel took no steps to move this matter to resolution.
They failed to participate in depositions scheduled by husband
and called none of their own. 	Counsel failed to appear at a
scheduled meeting to discuss issues relating to the divorce. 	He
did not respond to multiple contacts from opposing counsel.
Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the
trial court's denial of wife's motion to reopen or suspend the
decree.
- 3 -

Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is sunmarily
affirned.

Af fi rned.