COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

CAIN YATES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1282-99-3 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 30, 1999 

MARIE YATES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DICKENSON COUNTY 

Donald A. McGlothlin, Jr., Judge 

 (Donald E. Earls; Earls & Fleming, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 (Buddy H. Wallen; Buddy H. Wallen, P.C., on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Cain Yates (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court granting Marie Yates (wife) spousal support and dividing the 

marital property of the parties. On appeal, husband argues that 

the trial court erred by (1) failing to consider all the statutory 

factors when awarding spousal support and making its equitable 

distribution decision; and (2) placing undue significance on 

wife's age and health while not considering husband's health and 

ability to work. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the 

parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. 

See Rule 5A:27. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
 The record on appeal includes an opinion letter dated 

March 26, 1998, specifying the trial court's findings and rulings; 

the decree entered March 4, 1999, reciting verbatim the findings 

and rulings contained in the opinion letter; and a written 

statement of facts. The decree was endorsed by husband's counsel 

"Seen and objected to." Neither the decree nor the written 

statement of facts contains a statement of husband's objections. 

Husband filed a motion to rehear on August 7, 1998, requesting 

that the trial court "in the least award him a portion of the U.S. 

Savings Bond previously awarded to [wife]." No other objection is 

stated. 

 On appeal, husband contends that the trial court failed to 

consider the statutory factors set out in Code § 20-107.1 when 

awarding spousal support to wife. The brief does not contain 

references to the pages of the record where this question was 

preserved in the trial court. See Rule 5A:20(c). We find no 

indication in the record that husband raised this issue before the 

trial court. "No 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 

. . . ." Rule 5A:18. "We cannot assume that appellant's 

objection and reasons were proffered but not made a part of the 

record." Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 516, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 

(1991) (en banc). We will not consider on appeal an issue that 

was not presented to the trial court. 

- 2 -
 Husband also argues that the trial court failed to consider 

certain statutory factors set out in Code § 20-107.3 when making 

its equitable distribution decision. Husband's motion to rehear 

referred to certain payments made by husband for wife's expenses 

and requested redistribution of a specific piece of marital 

property. That is not the argument husband now raises on appeal. 

The endorsement of the order "Seen and objected to" gave no 

indication what husband's specific objections were. 

[N]either the Code [§ 8.01-384] nor Rule 

5A:18 is complied with merely by objecting 

generally to an order. Since the rule 

provides that "[a] mere statement that the 

judgment or award is contrary to the law and 

the evidence is not sufficient," it follows 

that a statement that an order is "seen and 

objected to" must also be insufficient. 

Lee, 12 Va. App. at 515, 404 S.E.2d at 738. The endorsement was 

insufficient to preserve the question husband now raises on 

appeal. 

 Finally, husband also contends that the trial court placed 

undue significance on wife's age and health and failed to 

consider his health and ability to work. For the reasons stated 

above, we find no indication that husband raised this issue 

below or preserved it for appeal. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

- 3 -