COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman
BRENDA LEE SCOTT JACKSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0995-01-2 PER CURIAM
NOVEMBER 6, 2001
JAMES ELIAS JACKSON
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUISA COUNTY
Herbert A. Pickford, III, Judge Pro Tempore
(Darryl A. Parker, on brief), for appellant.
No brief for appellee.
Brenda Jackson (wife) contends the trial court erred in: (1)
denying her sole custody of the parties' minor children; and (2)
awarding her $600 per month spousal support for eighteen months.
Upon reviewing the record and wife's brief, we summarily affirm
the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
The parties married on November 18, 1994. Two children
were born of the marriage. The parties separated on May 9,
1999.
On January 31, 2001, the trial court conducted an
evidentiary hearing to determine issues of equitable
distribution, support and custody. The trial court awarded wife
spousal support of $600 per month "for a period of eighteen
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
months in order to help her achieve employment or
self-employment." As to child custody, the trial court awarded
husband legal and physical custody of the children.
On February 6, 2001, the trial court issued a letter
opinion setting forth its findings and holdings and the bases
upon which those determinations were made. It directed
husband's attorney to "draft a decree consistent with the
opinions hereon expressed, and submit the same to Mr. Parker for
his endorsement."
On March 15, 2001, the trial court entered the final decree
of divorce. Wife's attorney endorsed the decree, "Seen and
Objected To." Wife filed no transcripts or statement of facts.
On March 27, 2001 the wife filed a motion to rehear, which was
limited to her assertion that she had new evidence regarding
husband's alleged homosexual activity. Wife's motion to rehear
also "request[ed] possession of the marital home, because it
would serve the best interest of the children." No hearing was
conducted on the motion. On April 18, 2001, more than
twenty-one days after entry of the March 15, 2001 final decree,
the trial court entered the following order:
This cause came to be heard on the fourth
day of April, 2001, upon the Defendant's
Motion to Reopen and the argument of
counsel.
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the cited
authorities, the Defendant's motion to
Reopen is hereby DENIED.
- 2 -
The record on appeal contains no transcript of the April 4,
2001 hearing or a memorandum demonstrating what arguments wife
made and upon what legal authority she relied.
On appeal, wife contends the trial court erroneously "based
its decision on custody" upon "mere speculation" that husband
"would take steps to regain the [marital] home." She also
argues that spousal support was inadequate and that "the court
is authorized to order appropriate periodic spousal support to
extend for the lifetime of the parties."
"[E]ndorsing a decree 'seen and objected to' does not
preserve an issue for appeal unless the record further reveals
that the issue was properly raised for consideration by the
trial court." Konefal v. Konefal, 18 Va. App. 612, 615, 446
S.E.2d 153, 155 (1994); see also Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512,
514-17, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738-39 (1991) (en banc). Thus, while
wife did object to the entry of the final order, she did not
object to any specific ruling or state her "grounds therefor,"
as required by the rule. In addition, wife did not specify in
her motion for rehearing the objections she now makes on appeal.
"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, except for good
cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends
of justice." Rule 5A:18. Absent any specific objections to the
trial court's ruling, wife failed to preserve any issues for
- 3 -
appeal. See Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 422-23, 425
S.E.2d 521, 525 (1992) (trial court must be alerted to precise
issue to which a party objects). Moreover, because the trial
court stated that it considered the factors in Code § 20-107.1
in determining spousal support and the factors in Code
§ 20-124.3 when determining custody, the record does not reflect
any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice
exceptions to Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, the decision of the
trial court is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 4 -