COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Humphreys and Beales
WILLARD R. MEADOWS
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2648-07-3 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
DANIEL W. SMITH
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GILES COUNTY
Brett L. Geisler, Judge
(Willard R. Meadows, pro se, on brief).
No brief for appellee.
Willard R. Meadows appeals from an order of the trial court entered on October 11, 2007
finding him in contempt of court for violating previous orders of the court. On appeal, Meadows
argues the trial court erred by: (1) finding the evidence was sufficient to show he was in contempt
of prior court orders; (2) reopening Chancery Case No. 5658; and (3) not granting him the right to
subpoena witnesses. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is
without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the trial court’s decision. See Rule 5A:27.
Meadows’ opening brief contains no argument, principles of law, or authorities related to
his Questions Presented Nos. I and III. In Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d
311, 317 (2008), the Supreme Court announced that when a party’s “failure to strictly adhere to
the requirements of Rule 5A:20(e)” is significant, “the Court of Appeals may . . . treat a question
presented as waived.” We find Meadows’ failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) is significant.
Accordingly, Questions Presented Nos. I and III are waived.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
In Question Presented No. II, Meadows asserts the trial court erred by reopening
Chancery Case No. 5658 “for a water right from Meadows’ land,” asserting that the original
complainants lost their water rights in a prior case. However, the October 11, 2007 order states
that Meadows was found in contempt because he violated previous court orders “by preventing
and/or impeding [Daniel W. Smith] from inspecting, maintaining and/or repairing the water
supply system located on [Meadows’] property.” Therefore, the trial court did not reopen the
case to grant Smith water rights from Meadows’ land. Accordingly, Meadows’ argument is
without merit.
On May 13, 2008, Meadows filed an objection and requested that this Court reconsider
its order of April 28, 2008 denying his request that we return the record to the trial court. Upon
reconsideration thereof, the request is denied.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
Affirmed.
-2-
Willard R. Meadows v. Daniel W. Smith
Combined Opinion