COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judg es Benton, Cole man and Willis

CAIN YATES MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 12 82-99-3 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 30, 1999 MARIE YATES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF DICKENSON COUNTY Donald A. McGlot hlin, Jr., Judge (Donald E. Earls; Earl s & Fleming, on brief), for appellant. (Buddy H. Wallen; Bu ddy H. Wallen, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Cain Yates (husband ) appeals the decision of the circuit court granting Marie Ya tes (wife) spousal supp ort and divi ding the marital property of the parties. On appeal, husb and argues that the trial court er red by (1) failing to co nsider all the statutory factors when awarding spousal suppor t and making its equitable distribution decision; and (2) placing undue si gnificance on wife's age and health while not consid ering husband' s health and ability to work. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conc lude that this appeal is withou t merit. Accordingly, we su mmarily affirm the decision of the tria l 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 appe al includes an op inion letter dated March 26, 1998, sp ecifying the trial court' s findings and rulings; the decree entered Marc h 4, 1999, reciting ve rbatim the findings and rulings cont ained in the opinion letter; and a written statement of facts. The decree was endorsed by husban d's counsel "Seen and object ed to." Neit her the decree nor the written statement of facts cont ains a statement of hu sband's obje ctions. Husband filed a mo tion to rehear on August 7, 19 98, requesting that the trial court "i n the least award him a portion of the U.S. Savings Bond previously awarded to [wife]." No other ob jection is stated. On appeal, husband contends that the tr ial court fa iled to consider the statutory factors set out in Code § 20-107.1 when awarding spousal supp ort to wife. The br ief does not contain references to th e pages of the record wh ere 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 obje ction was stated together with th e grounds therefor at the time of the ruling . . . ." Rule 5A:18. "We ca nnot assume th at appellant's objection and reas ons were proffered but no t 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 presen ted to the trial court. - 2 -Husband also argues that the trial court failed to consider certain statut ory factors se t out in Code § 20-1 07.3 when making its equitable dist ribution decision. Husb and's motion to rehear referred to cert ain payments made by husband for wife's expenses and requested re distribution of a specific pi ece of marital property. That is not the argument husband no w raises on appeal. The endorsement of the order "Seen and objected to" gave no indication what hu sband's specif ic 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 de cision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. Affirmed.

- 3 -