COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, Alst on and Retired Judge Hodges*

SAID S. SALAH MEMORANDUM OPINION * * v. Record Nos. 1086-08-4 and 1577-08-4 PER CURIAM MAY 19, 2009 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, ex rel

. SHEREEN JAOUNI

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Robert W. Wooldr idge, Jr., Judge (Said S. Salah, pro se , on briefs). No brief for appellee.

Said S. Salah appeals the tr ial court’s rulings regarding an award of attorney’s fees,

dismissal of rules to show cause, and calculation of child support and arrears. Salah argues that the trial court erred by (1) refusing to hear a rule to show cause brought by Salah and issued by the court; (2) refusing to adjudicate and rule upon matters, including visitation violations by Jaouni, brought during trial; (3) improperly awarding atto rney’s fees; (4) awarding attorney’s fees on matters not yet adjudicated by the trial court; (5) ab using its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees; (6) making factual and procedural errors by dela ying and continuing hearin gs for an unreasonable amount of time and then awarding attorney fees and child support th at were incurred as a result of the delays and continuances; (7) including day car e costs that were never incurred in the arrears

* Retired Judge Hodges took part in the consideration of th is case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D).

** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designate d for publication.- 2 - calculation; (8) not giving Salah a credit for hi s child support obligation for other children; (9) miscalculating the amount of arre ars; and (10) not upholding the provisions of the final decree regarding child support si nce the parties agreed that Salah wo uld not pay day care costs and that Jaouni would provide the health insurance coverage for the child. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that these a ppeals are procedurally barred because Salah failed to comply with Rule 5A:20(e). Ac cordingly, we summarily affirm the decisions of the trial court. 1

See Rule 5A:27.

BACKGROUND On September 17, 2003, the pa rties divorced. Since that time, the parties have filed

numerous motions and rules to show cause against each other. In 2006, the circuit court entered a child support order and several other orders and, in doing so, the court reserv ed attorney Claudia J. Zucker’s request for fees. 2 Salah appealed the 2006 orders, all of which this Court dismissed. 3

1 On October 14, 2008, appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that appellant failed to comply with certain proce dural requirements contained in the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. We will not dismi ss an appeal for non-jurisdictional defaults. See Jay v. Commonwealth , 275 Va. 510, 517-18, 659 S.E.2d 311, 315-16 (2008) (holding that the failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) is a non-juri sdictional defect and resu lts in a waiver of the question presented and supporting argu ment and/or a denial of the appeal, but not a dismissal of the appeal). Thus, appellee’s Octobe r 14, 2008 motion to dismiss is denied. On March 30, 2009, appellant filed a motion to deny appellee’s brief and/or request for extension for filing appellant’s reply brief. On February 18, 2009, we issued an order denying appellee’s motion to grant an extension of time to file her brief. We di d not consider appellee’s brief filed on March 12, 2009 in resolving the matte rs in this appeal. Accordingly, appellant’s March 30, 2009 motion is denied as moot. See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty , 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (holding that “mootness has two aspects: ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally c ognizable interest in the outcome’” (quoting Powell v. McCormack , 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969))).

2 On September 29, 2006, the circ uit court entered an order al lowing Zucker to withdraw as counsel for Jaouni. On February 20, 2009, Zucker f iled a brief in this app eal as an interested third party and prior counsel for appellee withou t filing a motion requesting consent from this Court to do so. Because Zucker failed to obtain this Court’s consent to file her brief, we did not consider her brief in resolving the matters in this appeal.

3 See Record Nos. 1580-06-4, 2355-06 -4, 2356-06-4, and 2357-06-4.- 3 - After the dismissals by this Court, the trial court heard Zucker’s re quest for an award of attorney’s fees. On Febr uary 6, 2008, the trial court heard testimony and evidence on the issue of attorney’s fees. The trial court awarded $12,000 in atto rney’s fees, and Salah appealed the order. On May 19, 2008, the trial c ourt heard the child support matte rs and entered an order on June 11, 2008, whereby ch ild support was calculated based on three periods. Fr om September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007, th e child support amount was $1,671 per month. From September 1, 2007 through Apr il 30, 2008, the child suppor t amount was $1,390 per mo nth. Beginning May 1, 2008, the child support amount was $1,361 per month. The differen ces in the child support amount were based on changes in the parties’ income an d day care costs. The trial court did not give a

credit to Salah for his other two children because “to do so would impair [Jaouni’s] ability to provide necessities.” Sala h appealed the order.

ANALYSIS In his briefs, Salah fails to provide any lega l authority to support his assertions. Rule 5A:20(e) mandates that appellant’s opening brief in clude “[t]he principles of law, the argument, and the authorities relating to each question presen ted . . . .” Salah did not comply with Rule 5A:20(e) because his opening briefs do not contai n any principles of law, or citation to legal authorities (aside from two references to Rule 1: 1) or the record to fully develop his arguments. Salah has the burden of showing that reversible error was committed. See Lutes v.

Alexander , 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992). Unsupported assertions of error “do not merit appellate consideration.” Buchanan v. Buchanan , 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Furthermore this Court “will no t search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Id. Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in or der to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of [appellant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Bass , 6 Va. App. 38, 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988)- 4 - ( en banc ). “Even pro se litigants must comply with the rules of court.” Francis v. Francis , 30 Va. App. 584, 591, 518 S.E.2d 842, 846 (1999). We find that Salah’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) is significant, and we will not

consider these issues. See Fadness v. Fadness , 52 Va. App. 833, 851, 667 S.E.2d 857, 866 (2008) (“If the parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was th eir duty to present that error to us with legal authority to support their contention.”); Parks v. Parks , 52 Va. App. 663, 664, 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s rulings. See Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.