COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Beales, Russell and Senior Judge Frank 

GUY FERRANTE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1997-14-4 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 28, 2015 

MARY JO KRIST 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

John M. Tran, Judge 

 (Guy Ferrante, pro se, on brief). 

 (Bruce M. Blanchard; Leigh M. Winstead; Odin, Feldman & 

Pittleman, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

 Guy Ferrante appeals from two orders entered by the circuit court on May 23, 2014. The 

crucial one is a show cause order incarcerating him until he paid Mary Jo Krist’s attorney’s fees as 

directed in the circuit court’s November 1, 2013 and April 18, 2014 orders. Ferrante argues that the 

circuit court erred by (1) “adopting” Krist’s written statement of facts because it was “inaccurate, 

incomplete, and irrelevant to the instant appeal;” (2) imposing an “excessive” $5,000 sanction 

against Ferrante when he was hospitalized, which violated his due process rights; (3) “enforcing an 

illegally imposed $5,000+ sanction that was also on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time;” and 

(4) imposing and enforcing an additional sanction because “the ostensibly ‘offending’ fourth motion 

included issues that had not been resolved . . ., as well as constitutional issues that had not . . . been 

addressed in [the] . . . earlier proceeding[s].” 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 circuit court. See Rule 5A:27. 

UNPUBLISHED 
 - 2 - 

BACKGROUND 

 On November 1, 2012, the circuit court entered a protective order against Ferrante. Since 

the entry of the protective order, Ferrante filed four motions to dissolve the protective order. The 

trial court denied each of his motions, and on November 1, 2013, it awarded $5,000 to Krist for 

her attorney’s fees and costs. Ferrante did not appeal the November 1, 2013 order. 

 On March 11, 2014, the circuit court issued a rule to show cause against Ferrante for his 

failure to pay the $5,000 sanctions imposed on November 1, 2013. On March 28, 2014, the 

circuit court granted the rule to show cause and continued the matter to April 18, 2014 for 

Ferrante to pay the $5,000 previously ordered. If he did not pay, then he would be ordered to 

pay Krist’s additional attorney’s fees and costs. On April 18, 2014, the parties appeared before 

the circuit court. Ferrante had not paid the $5,000 owed to Krist, so the trial court awarded Krist 

$2,244.50 for her attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing forth the rule to show cause. The 

matter was continued to May 23, 2014 for Ferrante to purge himself. 

 On May 23, 2014, the parties appeared before the circuit court. Ferrante still had not 

made any payments to Krist. The circuit court remanded Ferrante to the custody of the sheriff 

until he paid the $7,244.50 he was ordered to pay. This appeal followed.1

ANALYSIS 

Assignment of error #1

 Ferrante argues that the circuit court erred by “adopting” Krist’s written statement of 

facts, as opposed to his statement of facts. On July 17, 2014, Ferrante filed his written statement 

of facts. On July 30, 2014, Krist filed her objections to Ferrante’s statement of facts and filed 

her proposed written statement of facts. On August 6, 2014, Ferrante filed an objection to 

 1

 On May 27, 2014, Ferrante purged himself by paying the ordered sum and was released 

from custody. 
 - 3 - 

Krist’s statement of facts. On August 11, 2014, the circuit court entered an order adopting 

Krist’s statement of facts and making several corrections and additions. 

 Ferrante acknowledges that he did not object to the circuit court’s written statement of 

facts. He states that he “had no opportunity to register a timely objection because the trial court 

did not provide the notice and hearing . . . before its wholesale substitution of one Statement of 

Facts for another.” 

 Rule 5A:18 states, “No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for 

reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except 

for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” “The good 

cause exception is applied when an appellant did not have the opportunity to object to an alleged 

error during the proceedings below.” Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681, 694, 714 

S.E.2d 212, 218 (2011). Code § 8.01-384(A) states, in relevant part, that “if a party has no 

opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection shall 

not thereafter prejudice him . . . on appeal.” See also Commonwealth v. Amos, 287 Va. 301, 754 

S.E.2d 304 (2014); Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 258, 754 S.E.2d 516 (2014). 

 Assuming without deciding that the good cause exception applies to Ferrante’s failure to 

object to the circuit court’s statement of facts, the circuit court did not err in adopting and 

modifying Krist’s statement of facts. Krist objected to Ferrante’s written statement of facts and 

proffered her own statement of facts. Ferrante submitted objections to Krist’s proposed 

statement of facts. Pursuant to Rule 5A:8(d), a party may object to the written statement of facts, 

and the trial court shall: 

(1) overrule the objection; or 

(2) make any corrections that the trial judge deems necessary; or 

(3) include any accurate additions to make the record complete; or 
 - 4 - 

(4) certify the manner in which the record is incomplete; and 

(5) sign the transcript or written statement. 

 The circuit court did not err in sustaining Krist’s objections to Ferrante’s proposed 

statement of facts and adopting Krist’s proposed statement of facts with corrections and 

modifications. The trial court’s actions were within the authority granted it by subparts (2) and 

(3) of Rule 5A:8(d). 

Assignment of error #2 

 Ferrante argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in imposing a $5,000 sanction 

against him in its November 1, 2013 order. Ferrante contends he was unable to attend the 

November 1, 2013 hearing because he was recovering from knee surgery. He asserts that the 

circuit court acted ex parte and violated his due process rights. However, Ferrante did not appeal 

the November 1, 2013 order. 

 “All final judgments, orders, and decrees, irrespective of terms of court, shall remain 

under the control of the trial court and subject to be modified, vacated, or suspended for 

twenty-one days after the date of entry, and no longer.” Rule 1:1. 

 Since Ferrante did not appeal the November 1, 2013 order, that order is final and no 

longer subject to review. 

Assignment of error #3

 Appellant argues that the circuit court erred “by enforcing an illegally imposed $5,000+ 

sanction that was also on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time.” On March 28, 2014, the 

circuit court granted Krist’s rule to show cause and ordered Ferrante to pay, within fifteen days, 

the $5,000 awarded to Krist in the November 1, 2013 order. The March 28, 2014 order 

specifically states that the “[b]asis for today’s ruling was that the Nov. 1, 2013, order was final 
 - 5 - 

and appealable.” However, Ferrante did not appeal the November 1, 2013 order. Thus, Rule 1:1 

bars this Court’s consideration of assignment of error 3. See Rule 1:1.2 

Assignment of error #4

 Ferrante argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in imposing $2,058.58 in 

sanctions after it denied his fourth motion. He contends he filed the fourth motion because the 

court had not decided the merits of his arguments in prior motions. He asserts he was penalized 

for not prosecuting his cause when he was hospitalized and penalized again when he was able to 

come to court. The court ordered an additional $2,058.58 in attorneys’ fees as a sanction in its 

February 21, 2014 order. As mentioned above, Ferrante appealed that order to the Supreme 

Court of Virginia, which subsequently dismissed the appeal for failure to timely file a petition for 

appeal. The order is final, and this Court will not reconsider the issue. See Rule 1:1. 

Attorney’s fees and costs

Krist asks this Court to award her attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal. See 

O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 23 Va. App. 690, 695, 479 S.E.2d 98, 100 (1996). Having reviewed 

and considered the entire record in this case, we hold that Krist is entitled to a reasonable amount 

of attorney’s fees and costs, and we remand for the circuit court to set a reasonable award of 

attorney’s fees and costs incurred by her in this appeal. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27. 

We remand this case to the circuit court for determination and award of the appropriate appellate 

 2

 Ferrante appealed the February 21, 2014 order to the Supreme Court of Virginia. That 

February 21, 2014 order denied his fourth motion to dissolve the protective order and awarded 

$2,058.58 in attorney’s fees to Krist. (The Supreme Court of Virginia subsequently dismissed 

the appeal.) However, the circuit court’s March 28, 2014 order concerned the November 1, 2013 

order—not the February 21, 2014 order that was on appeal to the Supreme Court. 
 - 6 - 

attorney’s fees and costs, which also should include any additional attorney’s fees and costs 

incurred at the remand hearing. 

Affirmed and remanded.