COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Bumgar dner and Frank

GARY DOUGLAS LEE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1888-99-3 JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK OCTOBER 3, 2000 ROBIN ELAINE COWAN LEE

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY Ford C. Quil len, Judge (Timothy W. McAfee, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (C. M. Callahan, Jr., on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. Gary Douglas Lee (husband) appeals the decision of the trial court awarding child support an d spousal suppor t to Robin Lee (wife). On appe al, husband conten ds the trial cour t erred in: 1) awarding an increase in the pendente lite child support; 2) awarding an increase in the pendente lite spousal su pport; 3) failing to vacate the pendente lite order; 4) aw arding wife permanent spousa l support; and 5) dete rmining the award of permanent spousal suppor t to wife.

I. BACKGROUND Wife filed a Bill of Complaint on August 1, 1997, seeking a divorce from husband on the grounds of adultery and desert ion. Byagreement, a pendente lite order was entered on August 8, 1997, requiring husban d to pay $550 per month in child suppor t, and, in lieu of spousal support, wife wa s entitled to wi thdraw $440 per month from a joint chec king account to pay th e mortgage payment on the marital residence. On January 5, 1999, a hearing was he ld pursuant to husband's notice for equitable di stribution. Wi fe also filed a motion to modify the August 8, 1997 consent order to increase child support and to provide for addi tional spousal suppor t. The tr ial court increased child support to $1,000 per month and aw arded wife temporary spousa l support of $1,000 per month. Husband immediately file d a motion to stay the order and asked for reconsideratio n. A subseq uent hearing was cond ucted on February 10, 1999, and the trial court refuse d to amend its Ja nuary 5, 1999 order. The co urt entered an order on February 10, 1999, incorporating its previous rulings. On June 23, 1999, the trial co urt heard ore tenus evidence on spousal support and on the grounds of divorce and entered the final decree of divorce, reserving jurisd iction over matters of equitable di stribution. The first three issues raised by husb and involve the January 5, 1999 hearing, which modified the pendente lite consent order of August 8, 1997. The January 5, 1999 hearing also afforded wife pendente lite relief, which was an interloc utory decree.

- 2 -This Court has no jurisdicti on to entertai n appeals of interlocutory decrees that do no t adjudicate the principles of a

cause. 1 The Supreme Cour t of Virginia, in addres sing this issue, has held that an award of pendente lite support is an interlocutory order that does not adjudicate principles of a cause and is therefore not appealable. See Beatty v. Beatty , 105 Va. 213, 53 S.E. 2 (1906). Therefore, we dismis s for lack of jurisdiction as to these issues.

1 Code § 17.1-405 states: Any aggrieved party may appeal to the Court of Appeals from: 1. Any final decision of a circuit court on appeal from a decision of an administrative agency; 2. Any final decision of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission; 3. Any final judgment, order, or decree of a circuit court involving: a. Affirmance or annulment of a marriage; b. Divorce; c. Custody; d. Spousal or child support; e. The control or disposition of a child; f. Any other domestic relations matter arising under Title 16.1 or Title 20; or g. Adoption under Chapter 11 (§ 63.1-220 et seq .) of Title 63.1; 4. Any interlocutory decree or order entered in any of the cases listed in this section (i) granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction or (ii) adjudicating the principles of a cause. - 3 -The remaining tw o issues have be en decided in Lee v. Lee , Record No. 2941-99-3 (d ecided today). Theref ore, we do not write separately. Dismissed, in part, affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part.

- 4 -