COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Bumgardner and Clements
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
JIRINA HORVATHOVA NEWLAND
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1880-01-1 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
APRIL 9, 2002
CHARLES NEWLAND
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
Junius P. Fulton, III, Judge
Chester Smith for appellant.
Beth Ann Shapiro (Law Office of Tom C. Smith,
on brief), for appellee.
Jirina Horvathova Newland and Charles Newland were divorced
by final decree entered September 28, 2001. On appeal, the wife
contends the commissioner in chancery made various evidentiary
errors and was biased during his hearings. Finding no error in
the trial court's rulings, we affirm.
The trial court referred the matter to a commissioner in
chancery, who conducted three separate hearings. The
commissioner filed his report to which the wife made two general
exceptions. She asserted the commissioner abandoned the "Rules
of Evidence" by admitting "numerous and sundry documents" and
was biased and prejudiced against her.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
The trial court heard argument on the wife's exceptions and
by letter opinion overruled her exceptions to the report. The
trial court entered a final decree of divorce which confirmed
the report of the commissioner. The wife did not except to the
decree, and counsel endorsed it as "Seen." The record contains
no transcript of the hearing on the exceptions to the
commissioner's report. The written statement of facts only
indicates the trial court heard the wife's evidence that the
commissioner "abandoned the Rules of Evidence and Rules of
Admissibility" and "unfairly displayed biased [sic] and
prejudice against Appellant, and her counsel."
Each of the seven questions the wife raises on this appeal
asserts error made by the commissioner, not error made by the
trial court. Five of those issues were not presented to the
trial court and are thus not preserved for appeal. Rule 5A:18.
The wife did not except to the ruling by the trial court on the
two issues she did raise in her exceptions to the commissioner's
report. Id. Further, the questions she raises on this appeal
are imprecise and unspecified. "Statements unsupported by
argument, authority, or citations to the record do not merit
appellate consideration. We will not search the record for
errors in order to interpret the appellant's contention and
correct deficiencies in a brief." Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va.
App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992) (citations omitted).
- 2 -
A review of the transcripts of the commissioner's hearings
suggests no apparent error in the evidentiary rulings of the
commissioner, nor does it indicate the commissioner was biased.
We affirm the trial court.
We deny the husband's request for appellate attorney's fees
because the wife lacks the ability to pay.
Affirmed.
- 3 -