COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
ROBYN LAVINE NENNINGER
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1415-95-3 PER CURIAM
APRIL 30, 1996
LOUIS CHARLES NENNINGER, III
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE
James F. Ingram, Judge
(Barbara Hudson, on briefs), for appellant.
(Robert J. Smitherman; Daniel, Vaughan, Medley &
Smitherman, on brief), for appellee.
Robyn Lavine Nenninger (mother) appeals the decision of the
circuit court denying her motion for support arrearages and
increased child and spousal support from Louis Charles Nenninger,
III (father). On appeal, mother raises the following issues:
whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to
certify her hearing transcript and written statement, whether the
trial court erred in refusing to award support arrearages, and
whether the trial court entered a void child support order that
deviated from the statutory child support guidelines. Upon
reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that
this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm
the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Refusal to Certify Transcript
The trial court hearing was conducted on April 20, 21, 26
and 27, 1995, and was transcribed by a court reporter. The final
decree was entered on June 14, 1995. Mother filed a partial
transcript of the hearing and a written statement in lieu of
transcript with the trial court on June 23, 1995, to which father
objected. On August 21, 1995, the trial judge entered a
"Statement In Lieu of Judges's [sic] Certificate Pursuant to Rule
5A:8," in which the judge found that he was unable to sign
mother's written statement. The judge noted that the hearing
took four days, a full transcript was available, he had
insufficient recollection to certify the proposed statement, and
mother had the economic means to obtain a complete transcript.
The trial judge did not err by refusing to certify mother's
written statement. White v. Morano, 249 Va. 27, 30, 452 S.E.2d.
856, 858 (1995). In interpreting Rule 5:11(d), which parallels
the provisions of Rule 5A:8, the Virginia Supreme Court stated
that it would not transfer from an appellant to a trial judge
"the burden to draft narrative statements when, as here, a court
reporter was present at trial and, due to the passage of time and
lack of notes, the judge could not remember the testimony well
enough to certify a disputed narrative." Id. at 32, 452 S.E.2d
at 859. Moreover, mother's financial ability to obtain a
complete transcript was not significant. Id.
Accordingly, our review of the additional arguments raised
2
by mother in her appeal is limited to the record before us.
Because the judgment of the court below is
presumed to be correct, the onus is upon the
appellant to provide the reviewing court with
a sufficient record from which it can be
determined whether the trial court erred as
the appellant alleges. If an insufficient
record is furnished, the judgment appealed
from will be affirmed.
Id. at 30, 452 S.E.2d at 858.
Support Arrearages
Mother sought to recover support arrearages based upon the
support award made by the juvenile and domestic relations
district court, which was appealed to the circuit court. Upon
entry of the circuit court's support order, the district court
order was superseded. "Orders of the district court requiring
support of a spouse remain in full force and effect until
reversed or modified by the court to which an appeal has been
perfected . . . ." Martin v. Bales, 7 Va. App. 141, 145-46, 371
S.E.2d 823, 826 (1988) (emphasis added). See Code § 20-79(a).
Although this Court subsequently ruled that the circuit
court's order was erroneous, the circuit court had jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties. Its order, though
reversed, was not void. "A void judgment is one that has been
procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court
that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758
(1987) (citations omitted). The reversal of the circuit court's
order did not revive the superseded district court order, which
3
had been annulled "as completely as if there had been no previous
trial." Walker v. Department of Public Welfare, 223 Va. 557,
563, 290 S.E.2d 887, 890 (1982).
The record before us is not sufficient to determine what
facts formed the basis for the trial court's decision.
Therefore, mother has failed to demonstrate either factual or
legal error in the trial court's finding that no support
arrearages existed.
Child Support
The trial court's calculation of child support is based upon
father's monthly income of $7,341, minus $635 in spousal support,
and $1,000 in monthly income imputed to mother. Mother contends
the trial court erred in failing to include a 1994 bonus of
$19,866, which was received in April 1995, and that the trial
court's order is void because the court deviated from the
statutory guidelines without making written findings. The record
on appeal is insufficient for us to determine what findings the
trial court made concerning father's bonus payment and whether
there was evidence to support those findings. Therefore, in the
absence of a sufficient record, we cannot say the trial court
committed error.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
4