COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

NANCY A. MEGILL 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 1906-96-2 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 29, 1997 

ALLAN D. MEGILL 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 

David F. Berry, Judge 

 Nancy Anne Megill, pro se. 

 (Ronald R. Tweel; Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, 

Rasmussen & Tweel, P.C., on brief), for 

appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. 

 I. 

 The appellant contends that the trial court erred by not 

granting her a final decree of divorce on the ground of physical

 cruelty. In support of her contention, she argues that 

because she suffered "acute domestic violence" this Court should 

"take a firm stand" against domestic violence by reversing the 

trial court (1) for permitting "the husband's attorney [to] 

change the grounds for divorce from their original filing" and 

(2) for awarding the divorce on the grounds of having lived 

separate and apart for more than one year. The appellant asserts 

that she should be granted a divorce on the ground of physical 

cruelty in order to restore her personal dignity. 

 

 * Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 A trial court is authorized by Rule 1:8 and Code § 8.01-377 

to permit a party to amend pleadings to allege a different or 

dual grounds of divorce from that initially pleaded. When the 

pleadings allege and the evidence proves dual or multiple grounds 

for divorce, the trial court does not err by granting a divorce 

on either ground that has been pleaded and proven. Robertson v. 

Robertson, 215 Va. 425, 426, 211 S.E.2d 41, 43 (1975). Thus, 

although the pleadings and proof may have supported granting the 

wife a divorce on the ground of physical cruelty pursuant to Code 

§ 20-91(6), the trial court did not err by granting a divorce on 

the ground of having lived separate and apart for more than one 

year pursuant to Code § 20-91(9). Accordingly, we affirm the 

trial court's final decree of divorce granting the parties a 

divorce on the grounds of having lived separate and apart for 

more than one year. 

 II. 

 The appellant variously assigns as error the trial court's 

failure to take into account the inequality of the parties' legal 

representation, that the court "interchanged equitable 

distribution for spousal support," and by limiting the hearings 

to the "partial agreement" the court denied the wife her right to 

trial on all issues. The appellant asks this Court to grant her 

the following relief as a result of the alleged error: require 

the husband to pay three years of COBRA premiums, require him to 

designate her a fifty percent beneficiary on a life insurance 
- 3 - 

policy in order to protect spousal support, set deadlines for the 

husband to comply with the trial court's distribution order, 

require husband to pay fifty percent of the 1994 federal income 

tax obligation, revise the date of the QUADRO division, require 

husband to pay $2,000 for damaging the marital home, hold the 

husband in contempt for nonpayment of spousal support, require 

the husband to pay the real estate appraiser, require the husband 

to pay various expenses associated with the transfer and 

maintenance of the house, require the husband to transfer title 

or register a car for her use, and other miscellaneous relief. 

 An appellant has the responsibility to provide the appellate 

court with an adequate record of the trial proceedings and a 

sufficient brief of legal authority to enable the court to 

reasonably understand the nature of the appeal and the underlying 

facts upon which the appeal is based. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 

Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). An appellate court 

does not have the responsibility of scouring the record to 

understand the facts and to develop the legal research and 

argument necessary to support a party's legal position. Id. The 

appellant has failed to provide us with an adequate appendix or 

references to the record to enable us to address the factual 

issues that have been raised, has failed to provide us with 

necessary references to legal authority in support of her claims 

and requests for relief, has raised various issues for the first 

time on appeal in violation of Rule 5A:18, and has for the first 
- 4 - 

time requested specific relief in the appellate court that was 

not requested in the trial court. See Rogers v. Rogers, 170 Va. 

417, 421, 196 S.E. 586, 588 (1938). For the foregoing reasons, 

appellant's remaining assignments of error and requests for 

relief are insufficient and are denied. 

Affirmed.