COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Frank and Clements
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
EDWIN EUGENE GELLETLY, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2563-00-2 JUDGE JEAN HARRISON CLEMENTS
AUGUST 7, 2001
ELANA H. GELLETLY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Melvin R. Hughes, Jr., Judge
Edwin Eugene Gelletly, Jr., pro se.
Eileen A. Smith (Spinella, Owings & Shaia, on
brief), for appellee.
Edwin Eugene Gelletly, Jr., (husband) appeals from a decision
of the trial court denying his motion to terminate or reduce
spousal support. Elana H. Gelletly (wife) cross-appeals the
denial of her motion for sanctions and attorney's fees. On
appeal, husband contends the trial court erred (1) in failing to
act upon wife's intentionally false and misleading testimony, (2)
in finding the evidence insufficient to support his motion, (3) in
refusing to admit evidence of wife's bankruptcy and statements in
discovery, and (4) in receiving improper and direct contact by the
wife. In her cross-appeal, wife contends the trial court abused
its discretion in denying her motion for sanctions and attorney's
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
fees. Each party seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs on
appeal. Finding appellate review procedurally barred, we affirm
the decision of the trial court. Accordingly, we dismiss wife's
motion to exclude parts of husband's designation of the record and
deny each party's request for attorney's fees and costs.
As the parties are fully conversant with the record in this
case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential
value, this opinion recites only those facts and incidents of the
proceedings as necessary to the parties' understanding of the
disposition of this appeal.
Our review of an appeal is restricted to the record. Turner
v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99, 341 S.E.2d 400, 401 (1986).
"An appellate court must dispose of the case upon the record and
cannot base its decision upon appellant's petition or brief, or
statements of counsel in open court. We may act only upon facts
contained in the record." Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630,
635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993). Furthermore, we do not presume on
appeal that the trial court has erred. Indeed,
"[w]e have many times pointed out that on
appeal the judgment of the lower court is
presumed to be correct and the burden is on
the appellant to present to us a sufficient
record from which we can determine whether
the lower court has erred in the respect
complained of. If the appellant fails to do
this, the judgment will be affirmed."
Id. (quoting Justis v. Young, 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 S.E.2d 255,
256-57 (1961)).
- 2 -
The trial court's record in this case is voluminous.
However, the appendix is only twenty-one pages and lacks nearly
all the documents pertinent to this appeal, including the final
order appealed from. Upon our review of the briefs, the appendix,
and the record, we conclude that the parties have failed to
provide us with an adequate appendix or references to the record
to enable us to address the factual issues that have been raised
by both parties and determine whether the trial court erred. "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).
Furthermore, husband has raised various issues for the first
time on appeal and has requested for the first time specific
relief in the appellate court that was not requested in the trial
court. We "will not consider an argument on appeal which was not
presented to the trial court." Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App.
299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1988).
The main purpose of requiring timely specific
objections is to afford the trial court an
opportunity to rule intelligently on the
issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary
appeals and reversals. In addition, a
specific, contemporaneous objection gives the
opposing party the opportunity to meet the
objection at that stage of the proceeding.
Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44, 400 S.E.2d 164, 167 (1991).
- 3 -
For these reasons, we are barred from considering the issues
before us. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Affirmed.
- 4 -