COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Humphreys and Senior Judge Hodges
GRAYLING N. BRYAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1919-02-1 PER CURIAM
NOVEMBER 5, 2002
LINDA A. BRYAN
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
James A. Cales, Jr., Judge
(Gregory Robert Wright; Wright & Associates,
P.C., on brief), for appellant.
(Del M. Mauhrine Brown; The Brown Law Office,
P.C., on brief), for appellee.
Grayling N. Bryan (husband) appeals the trial court's final
decree of divorce awarding Linda A. Bryan (wife) spousal support.
On appeal, husband contends the commissioner in chancery
(commissioner) and the trial court improperly "identified and
obtained" evidence regarding the factors of Code § 20-107.1(E).
He also argues that the commissioner and the trial court abused
their discretion in failing to "identify" these factors. Upon
review of the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude this
appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the
decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
In the first issue raised in husband's opening brief, husband
argues that the commissioner erred in failing to consider Code
§ 20-107.1(E)(9) and (10) in his determination of the spousal
support award. In the second issue raised in husband's opening
brief, husband argues that the commissioner should be required to
"make a Factor 9 and 10 inquiry when spousal support is contested"
and that he failed to do that.
Husband's counsel endorsed the final divorce decree "Seen and
objected to particularly as to award of spousal support."
Husband's third exception in his "Exceptions to the Report of the
Commissioner in Chancery" stated, "[Husband] takes exception to
the recommendation of the Commissioner that [husband] be required
to pay to the wife $625.00 per month as spousal support."
Neither husband's exceptions to the report of the
commissioner nor his objection to the final divorce decree
indicate that husband asserted to the trial court the specific
arguments raised on appeal concerning Code § 20-107.1(E)(9) and
(10). In addition, the record does not contain a transcript of
the trial court's March 1, 2002 hearing addressing husband's
exceptions to the report of the commissioner. Without a complete
transcript or written statement of facts concerning that hearing,
this Court has no knowledge of the arguments made by husband to
the trial court at the hearing.
As appellant, husband has the burden of providing a record
which substantiates his claims of error. See Jenkins v.
- 2 -
Winchester Dep't of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1185, 409
S.E.2d 16, 20 (1991). In the absence of such a record "we will
not consider the point." Id. Therefore, we hold that Rule 5A:18
bars our consideration of husband's challenges to the trial
court's approval of the commissioner's report. Moreover, the
record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or
ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial
court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
- 3 -