COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Beal es and Senior Judge Annunziata

WILLIAM H. KIRKENDALE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1446-10-4 PER CURIAM MARCH 29, 2011 KRISTEN A. KIRKENDALE

FROM THE CIRCUIT C OURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY James H. Chamblin, Judge (William H. Kirkendale, pro se , on brief). (Kristen A. Kirkendale, pro se , on brief).

William H. Kirkendale (husband) appeals a final decree of divorce. Hu sband argues that the trial court erred by (1) not considering the testimony of the mother of Kriste n A. Kirkendale (wife) because it corroborated husband’s testimony and evidence regardin g wife’s alcoholism; (2) preserving wife’s Fifth Amendmen t assertions to questions asked at trial; (3) striking a question and not allowing husband to fully answer a question regarding wife’s psychological services; (4) not imputing income to wife and not considering that her alcoho lism led to her lo ss of full-time employment as a teacher; (5) not factoring in work-related ch ildcare into the child support calculation; (6) not considering husb and’s ability to pa y spousal support, especi ally in light of his income and expense statement; (7) not considering th e best interests of the children when calculating child support and spousa l support, as the rulings do not allow husband to maintain the same standard of living for the children; (8) holding that the debt to wife’s sister was marital and apportioning this debt equally between the parties; (9) holding husband solely responsible for the debt arising from the busine ss loan taken out in 2002; (10) hold ing that any issue not discussed and

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - ruled on by the trial court should be decided by mutual agreement of the parties; (11) not giving

husband a credit for the reduction of debt he paid since the final hearing; and (12) not awarding attorney’s fees to husband. 1 Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm th e decision of the trial court.

See Rule 5A:27.

BACKGROUND Husband and wife married on July 10, 1993, separated on August 28, 2008, and divorced on April 16, 2010. The parties have three minor children. In December 2008, husband filed a complaint for divorce, to which wife responded and filed a cross-complaint for divorce. On October 21 and 22, 2009, the trial court heard evidence regarding the grounds for divorce, custody and visitation, equitable di stribution, spousal support, child support, and attorney’s fees. The trial court issued a detailed, nineteen-p age letter opinion on Janua ry 13, 2010. The trial court granted husband a divorce based on living separa te and apart for more than one year. The trial court granted the parties joint legal custody of the children, with husband having primary physical custody. After considering the factors in Code § 20-107.3, the trial court ruled that “there should be an essentially e qual division of the [liquid assets] and that all of the debt, except for Mr. Kirkendale’s business and motorcycle lo ans, should be apportioned equally between the parties.” Furthermore, the trial court ruled that husband did not meet his burden to prove that wife was voluntarily underemployed; therefore, it declined to impute income to her. After considering the factors in Code § 20-107.1, the trial court awarded wife spousal support in the amount of $2,500 per month for three years and re served her right to request spousal support, upon a change of circumstances, af ter that time period, for seven years. Next, the trial court

1 Husband lists thirteen assignments of erro r in his opening brief; however, the twelfth and thirteenth issue both concern the trial court’s re fusal to award attorney’s fees to either party.- 3 - considered child support and concluded that it di d not have sufficient information to determine

the cost of the work-related childcare. As a result, wife’s child support obligation is $452 per month. Lastly, the trial cour t declined to award attorney’s fees to either party. Husband filed a motion for reconsideration, wh ich the trial court ultimately denied. The trial court entered the divorce decree on Apr il 16, 2010. Each party filed several post-trial motions, and a final order regard ing the distribution of personal property was entered on June 7, 2010. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

Wife’s Motion to Dismiss

Wife included a motion to dismiss in her brief. She argues that husban d’s appeal should be dismissed for his failure to file an appendix pursuan t to Rule 5A:25; howeve r, this Court ruled on January 27, 2011 that the appeal could proceed even though hu sband did not timely file an appendix. 2 Accordingly, we deny wife’s motion. Issues 1, 2, 3, 6, and 10 - Rule 5A:18 Husband failed to preserve issues 1, 2, 3, 6, a nd 10. “No ruling of the trial court . . . will

be considered as a basis for reversal unless th e objection was stated t ogether with the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” 3 Rule 5A:18. We “will not consider an argument on appeal which

2 Initially, husband did not file an appendix with his opening brief. This Court issued a show cause order, to which husband responded a nd filed a late appendix. Husband’s appendix included the trial court’s letter opinion date d January 13, 2010, husband’s income and expense statement dated October 20, 2009, tw o out of four pages of husba nd’s objections to the final decree, and Exhibit A of the final de cree regarding the parties’ debts.

3 Effective July 1, 2010, Rule 5A:18 was revise d to state that “[n] o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reve rsal unless an objection wa s stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling . . . .” Because the proceedings below were completed prior to this revision taking effect, we will rely on the lan guage of Rule 5A:18 that was then in effect.- 4 - was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth , 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). “The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is to allow the trial c ourt to correct in the trial court any error that is called to its attention.” Lee v. Lee , 12 Va. App. 512, 514, 404 S.E.2d 736, 737 (1991) ( en banc ). A pro se litigant appearing “is no less bound by the rules of procedure and substantive law than a defendant represented by counsel.” Townes v.

Commonwealth , 234 Va. 307, 319, 362 S.E.2d 650, 657 (1987). Therefore, we will not consider these issues. Issues 4, 5, 8, and 11 - Rule 5A:20(e) Husband did not comply with Rule 5A:20( e) because his opening brief does not contain any principles of law, or citati on to legal authorities, to fully de velop his arguments for issues 4, 5, 8, and 11. Rule 5A:20(e) mandates that appell ant’s opening brief include “[t]he standard of review and the argument (including principles of law and authorities) rela ting to each assignment

of error.” Husband has the burden of showing that reversible error was committed. See Lutes v.

Alexander , 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992). Unsupported assertions of error “do not merit appellate consideration.” Buchanan v. Buchanan , 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Furthermore this Court “will no t search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Id. Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in or der to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of [appellant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Bass , 6 Va. App. 38, 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) ( en banc ). “Even pro se litigants must comply with the rules of court.” Francis v. Francis , 30 Va. App. 584, 591, 518 S.E.2d 842, 846 (1999).

See Fails v. Va. State Bar , 265 Va. 3, 5 n.1, 574 S.E.2d 530, 531 n.1 (2003) (applying the Rule of Court in effect at the time of the proceedings below).- 5 - We find that husband’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) is signific ant, so we will not consider issues 4, 5, 8, and 11. See Fadness v. Fadness , 52 Va. App. 833, 851, 667 S.E.2d 857, 866 (2008) (“If the parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was their duty to present that error to us with legal authority to support thei r contention.”); Parks v. Parks , 52 Va. App. 663, 664, 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008). Issues 7, 9, and 12 – Rule 5A:25 Husband failed to provide us with the necessa ry documents in the appendix to consider issues 7, 9, and 12. The appendix includes only tw o out of four pages of his objections to the final decree, and issues 7, 9, and 12 were not listed in those two pages of objections. Furthermore, the appendix did not contain hus band’s motion for reconsideration, the order denying his motion, and those portions of the transcript necessary for us to review husband’s arguments. See Rule 5A:25.

The appendix must include “any testimony and other incidents of the case germane to the questions presented,” Rule 5A:25(c)(3), and “exhibits necessary for an understanding of the case that can reasonably be reproduced,” Rule 5A:25(c)(6). “The appendix is a tool vital to the functi on of the appellate proce ss in Virginia. . . . By requiring the inclusion of all parts of the record germane to the issues, the Rules promote the cause of plenary justice.” Thrasher v. Burlage , 219 Va. 1007, 1009-10, 254 S.E.2d 64, 66 (1979) (per curiam). Thus, the filing of an appendix that complies with the Rules, is “essential to an informed collegiate decision.” Id. Patterson v. City of Richmond , 39 Va. App. 706, 717, 576 S.E.2d 759, 764-65 (2003). Husband failed to provide us with an adequa te appendix to enable us to address his assignments of error. Because the appendix filed in this case doe s not contain a part of the- 6 - record that is essential to the resolution of the issues before us, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court. 4

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ru ling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

4 In addition to his failure to comply with Rule 5A:25, husband failed to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) for these assignments of e rror, and this failure is significant. See Jay v. Commonwealth , 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008).