COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Felton , Judges Clements and Beales

ONDRAKE HAYWOOD NERO MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0505-06-2 J UDGE RANDOLPH A. BEALES JANUARY 16, 2007 SHERRI C. WILLIAMS

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HOPEWELL Robert G. O’Hara, Jr ., Judge Designate (C. James Williams, III, on brie f), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. No brief or argument for appellee.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether appellant (father), wh o sought review in the circuit court of a juvenile and domestic relations district court order that increased his child support obligation, was required to post an appeal bond. We hold he was not.

B ACKGROUND Appellee (mother) filed a moti on to increase child support in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for the City of Hopewell . That court entered an order on November 18, 2005, which increased father’s ch ild support obligation to $646.56 per month startin g on November 25, 2005. 1 That order made no mention of any child support arrearage th at existed as of November

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 The November 18, 2005 order, while contained in the record, was not made part of the appendix. A typewritten November 30, 2005 order of support was included in the appendix; this order included the same information as the handwritten November 18, 2005 order.- 2 - 18, 2005, 2 nor did that order establish an arrearage. Fa ther filed a notice of appeal on the same day the order was entered, seeking revi ew in the Hopewe ll Circuit Court of the juvenile and domestic relations district court order. According to father, the district court clerk’s office informed him that an appeal bond was not required. A hearing in the circuit cour t was set for January 27, 2006. On that date, the circuit court entered an orde r dismissing the case, “finding that the appeal had not properly been perfected as no appeal bond ha d been posted as required by law.” That order also established an arrearage of $216 as of January 25, 2006, and remanded th e matter to the juvenile and domestic relations district court “for all fu ture matters.” Father filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court, whereupon he posted an appeal bond in the amount of $500.

A NALYSIS Code § 16.1-296(H) reads, in pertinent part 3 : No appeal bond shall be require d of a party appealing from an order of a juvenile and dome stic relations district court except for that portion of any order or judgment establishing a support arrearage or suspending payment of support during pendency of an appeal. . . . An appeal will not be perfected unless such appeal bond as may be required is filed within 30 days from the entry of the final judgment or order. (Emphasis added.) Thus, “an appeal bond is required only for [the appeal of] ‘that portion of any order . . . establishing a support arrearage.’” Sharma v. Sharma , 46 Va. App. 584, 591, 620 S.E.2d 553, 557 (2005) (quoting Avery v. Commonwealth , 22 Va. App. 698, 700, 472 S.E.2d 675, 676 (1996)).

2 The November 30, 2005 order of support also do es not indicate that an arrearage existed on November 18, 2005, when the notice of appeal to circuit court was filed.

3 There is no indication from the record that father’s support obligation was suspended pending the appeal.- 3 - As both the plain language of Code § 16.1-296(H) and our holding in Sharma make clear, an appeal bond is not required when the appealed order does not establish an arrearage. Here, the juvenile and domestic relations district court order that was appealed to the circuit court only increased father’s child support obligation. It di d not establish an arrearage. A modification of child support is not an order establishing a s upport arrearage. Accordingly, father was not required to post an appeal bond when he appealed the juvenile and domestic relations district

court order in this case.

C ONCLUSION The circuit court erre d in dismissing father’s appeal. We reverse and remand for further proceedings in the circuit cour t consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.