COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Bumgardner 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. Quillen, 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 and spousal support to Robin Lee 

(wife). On appeal, husband contends the trial court erred in: 1) 

awarding an increase in the pendente lite child support; 2) 

awarding an increase in the pendente lite spousal support; 3) 

failing to vacate the pendente lite order; 4) awarding wife 

permanent spousal support; and 5) determining the award of 

permanent spousal support 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 desertion. By 
agreement, a pendente lite order was entered on August 8, 1997, 

requiring husband to pay $550 per month in child support, and, in 

lieu of spousal support, wife was entitled to withdraw $440 per 

month from a joint checking account to pay the mortgage payment on 

the marital residence. 

 On January 5, 1999, a hearing was held pursuant to husband's 

notice for equitable distribution. Wife also filed a motion to 

modify the August 8, 1997 consent order to increase child support 

and to provide for additional spousal support. The trial court 

increased child support to $1,000 per month and awarded wife 

temporary spousal support of $1,000 per month. Husband 

immediately filed a motion to stay the order and asked for 

reconsideration. A subsequent hearing was conducted on February 

10, 1999, and the trial court refused to amend its January 5, 1999 

order. The court entered an order on February 10, 1999, 

incorporating its previous rulings. 

 On June 23, 1999, the trial court heard ore tenus evidence on 

spousal support and on the grounds of divorce and entered the 

final decree of divorce, reserving jurisdiction over matters of 

equitable distribution. 

 The first three issues raised by husband 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 interlocutory decree. 

- 2 -
 This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals of 

interlocutory decrees that do not adjudicate the principles of a 

cause.1

 The Supreme Court of Virginia, in addressing 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 dismiss 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 two issues have been decided in Lee v. Lee, 

Record No. 2941-99-3 (decided today). Therefore, we do not write 

separately. 

 Dismissed, in part, 

 affirmed, in part, 

 and reversed and 

 remanded, in part. 

- 4 -