COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, McCl anahan and Senior Judge Willis

LAWRENCE A. WILLIAMS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1127-07-3 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 20, 2007 BARBARA H. WILLIAMS

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge (Melvin L. Hill; Ware & Hill, L.L.P., on brief), for appellant. (Barry M. Tatel; Neil E. McNa lly; Key, Tatel & Mc Nally, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Lawrence A. Williams (“husband”) appeal s from the circuit court’ s April 27, 2007 order denying his motion for a reduction in or termination of his spou sal support obligation owed to

Barbara H. Williams (“wife”). On appeal, husband contends th e trial court (1) abus ed its discretion in not terminating spousal support, and (2) e rred in not making written findings and conclusions identifying the factors in Code § 20-107.1 which supported the refusal to terminate spousal support. Wife seeks attorney’s fees and costs associated wi th this appeal. Upon reviewing the record and briefs, we conclude that this appeal is withou t merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the

decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.

I. and II.

Husband’s counsel endorsed the court’s or der “Seen and Objected to:” and did not particularize the basis for his objection. The wr itten statement of facts, filed in lieu of a

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - transcript pursuant to Rule 5A:8(c), did not recite husband’s argument s or any objections he made to the trial court’s rulings. Rule 5A:18 provides that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection was stated together with the grounds th erefor at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” The purpose of the rule is to allow the trial court to cure any error calle d to its attention, thereby avoiding unnecessary appeals and retrials. See , e.g. , Lee v. Lee , 12 Va. App. 512, 514, 404 S.E.2d 736, 737 (1991) ( en banc ). Ordinarily, endorsement of an or der “Seen and objected to” is not specific enough to meet the requirements of Rule 5A:18 because it does not sufficiently alert the tria l court to the claimed error. See id. at 515, 404 S.E.2d at 738. Such an endorsement is sufficient to satisfy Rule 5A:18 only if “the ru ling made by the trial court was narrow enough to make obvious the ba sis of appellant’s objection.” Mackie v. Hill , 16 Va. App. 229, 231, 429 S.E.2d 37, 38 (1993). Herring v. Herring , 33 Va. App. 281, 286, 532 S.E.2d 923, 927 (2000). The written statement does not mention any mo tions or arguments made by counsel. It does not even note husband’s general exception to the trial court’s ruling. The signed

endorsement of the final order indicates husband “[o]bjected to” the ruli ng, but does not set forth specifically the contested issues. Counsel may meet the mandates of Rule 5A:18 in many ways. For instance, counsel may make clear the ground for his objection in a motion to strike the evidence or in closing argument. Counsel may also state the grounds therefor during a motion to set aside the verdict or a motion to reconsider. Likewise, counsel may, if he or she has previously failed to do so, include an objection and reasons ther efor in the final orde r or at least tender such an order to the trial judge.

Lee , 12 Va. App. at 515-16, 404 S.E.2d at 738 (citations omitted). Husband chose not to produce a transcript of the hearing. He did not file any motions arguing his position. Thus, the record before us fails to set forth the issues raised below. We cannot assume that appellant’s objection and reasons were proffered but not made a pa rt of the record. Rule 5A:8 requires appellant to present a complete transcript for this Court to- 3 - consider his or her issues on app eal. Even assuming that the same issues were raised at trial as on appeal, we do not know if counsel stated legal reasons to support hi s theory or merely argued the weight of the evidence.

Id. at 516-17, 404 S.E.2d at 738-39. We cannot be certain of the basis on which husband objected to this ruling. Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of justice, appe llant does not argue that we should invoke these exceptions. See e.g. , Redman v. Commonwealth , 25 Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (“In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurr ed, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.” (emphasis added)). We will not consider, sua sponte , a “miscarriage of justice” argument under Rule 5A:18.

Edwards v. Commonwealth , 41 Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) ( en banc ). Finding the issues raised before this Court are procedurally defaulted under Rule 5A:18, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

III. Wife requests this Court award attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal. Upon a review of this appeal, we find that the husband’s case pres ented questions that were not supported by law or evidence. See Gottlieb v. Gottlieb , 19 Va. App. 77, 95, 448 S.E.2d 666, 677 (1994). Therefore, we award attorney’s fees to wife and remand this case to the trial

court for determination of atto rney’s fees and costs incurred in responding to this appeal, including any attorney’s fees and costs incurred at the re mand hearing, and any reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of collection, if necessary.

Affirmed and remanded

.