COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank 

KAREN MARIE KING 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1827-99-2 PER CURIAM 

 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 

ROY LEE KING 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DINWIDDIE COUNTY 

Thomas V. Warren, Judge 

 (J. Kevin Clarke, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Sharon Gregory Jacobs; Morchower, Luxton & 

Whaley, on brief), for appellee. 

 Karen Marie King (wife) appeals the final decree of divorce 

entered by the circuit court. Wife contends that the trial court 

(1) failed to include written findings supporting its denial of 

wife's request for spousal support, in violation of Code 

§ 20-107.1(F); (2) failed to classify and value the parties' 

property, in violation of Code § 20-107.3(A); and (3) erred by 

relying on insufficient evidence to support its finding that the 

parties resolved their property rights. Wife also appeals the 

decision of the trial court denying her Motion to Reopen Case or 

to Suspend Final Decree. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of 

the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. 

See Rule 5A:27. 

 Roy Lee King (husband) filed his bill of complaint on August 

24, 1998. Evidence was submitted by deposition. The record on 

appeal includes wife's written statement of facts and husband's 

objections thereto. 

 The record demonstrates that husband's counsel sent to wife's 

counsel a copy of the depositions and proposed final decree of 

divorce on April 20, 1999. Husband's counsel sent two additional 

letters, but received no response. Wife's counsel failed to 

appear at a meeting scheduled for April 28, 1999, to discuss 

issues relating to the divorce. By notice filed June 16, 1999, 

husband's counsel notified wife's counsel of the July 2, 1999 

hearing for presentation of the final decree of divorce, along 

with a copy of the draft order, in compliance with Rule 1:13. 

Neither wife nor her counsel appeared at the hearing on July 2, 

1999. Wife noted no exceptions to the final decree, which was 

entered the day of the hearing. Wife filed her motion to reopen 

the case or suspend the final decree on July 26, 1999, more than 

twenty-one days after entry of the final decree. 

 Wife failed to preserve any objections to the final decree. 

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 therefor at the time of the 

ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of 

- 2 -
Appeals to attain the ends of justice." "The purpose of Rule 

5A:18 is to provide the trial court with the opportunity to remedy 

any error so that an appeal is not necessary." 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 demonstrates that husband's counsel provided a 

copy of the draft final decree to wife's counsel in mid-April, 

more than two months before entry of the decree. Neither wife nor 

her counsel appeared at the depositions, 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 decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

- 4 -