COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judg es Bray, Annunz iata and Frank

KAREN MARIE KING MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 18 27-99-2 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 8, 2000 ROY LEE KING

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF DINWIDDIE COUNTY Thomas V. Wa rren, Judge (J. Kevin Clarke, on briefs), for appellant. (Sharon Gregor y Jacobs; Morcho wer, Luxton & Whaley, on brief), for appellee.

Karen Marie King (wife) appeals the fi nal decree of divorce entered by the circuit court. Wife contends that the trial court (1) failed to in clude written find ings supporting its denial of wife's request for spousal support, in violation of Code § 20-107.1(F); (2) fa iled to classify an d value the parties' property, in violation of Code § 20-107.3(A ); and (3) erred by relying on insufficient evidence to support its find ing that the parties resolv ed their property rights. Wife also appeals the decision of the trial court denyin g her Motion to Reopen Case or to Suspend Final Decree. Upon re viewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appe al is withou t merit.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.Accordingly, we su mmarily affirm the decision of the tria l court. See Rule 5A:27. Roy Lee King (husband ) filed his bill of complaint on August 24, 1998. Evidence wa s submitted by depositi on. The record on appeal includes wife's written statem ent of facts and husband's objections thereto. The record demonstrat es that husban d's counsel sent to wife's counsel a copy of the depositions and proposed final decree of divorce on April 20, 19 99. Husband's counsel sent two additional letters, but received no response. Wife's counsel fa iled to appear at a me eting scheduled for April 28, 19 99, to discuss issues relating to th e divorce. By notice filed June 16, 1999, husband's coun sel notified wife 's counsel of th e July 2, 1999 hearing for presen tation of the fi nal decree of divorce, along with a copy of the dr aft order, in compliance with Rule 1:13. Neither wife nor her co unsel appeared at the hearing on July 2, 1999. Wife noted no exceptions to the final de cree, which was entered the day of the hearing. Wife filed her mo tion to reopen the case or susp end the final decr ee on July 26, 1999, more than twenty-one days af ter entry of the final decree. Wife failed to pres erve any objections to the final decree. Rule 5A:18 provides th at "[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be consider ed as a basis fo r reversal unless the objection was stated together wi th the grounds therefor at th e time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of

- 2 -Appeals to attain the ends of justic e." "The purp ose of Rule 5A:18 is to prov ide the trial cour t with the opport unity to remedy any error so that an appe al is not ne cessary." Knight v. Commonwealth , 18 Va. App. 207, 216, 443 S.E.2d 165, 170 (1994);

see Newsome v. Newsome , 18 Va. App. 22, 24-25, 441 S.E.2d 346, 347 (1994). The record de monstrates that husband's coun sel provided a copy of the draf t final decree to wife's counsel in mid-April, more than two mont hs before entry of the de cree. Neither wife nor her counsel appear ed at the deposi tions, and wife submitted no evidence or depositions on her own behalf. Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of wife's first three questions presented on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. After filing her answer and cross-bill of complaint, wife and her counsel took no steps to move this matter to resolution. They failed to participate in depositions scheduled by husband and called none of their own. Counsel failed to appear at a scheduled meeting to discuss issues relating to the divorce. He did not respond to multiple contacts from opposing counsel. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of wife's motion to reopen or suspend the decree.

- 3 -Accordingly, the de cision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. Affirmed.

- 4 -