COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, McClanahan and Senior Judge Willis 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

SETH A. BAILEY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 2143-08-1 JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS 

 JANUARY 12, 2010 

NETTIE L. BAILEY 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 

James A. Cales, Jr., Judge 

 Kim M. Crump for appellant. 

 No brief or argument for appellee. 

Seth A. Bailey (“husband”) appeals the circuit court’s dismissal as untimely his motion to 

designate as waste a second mortgage taken out by Nettie L. Bailey (“wife”) on their marital 

residence. Husband contends that the circuit court had indicated at a previous hearing that it 

would address the issue at a later time and therefore abused its discretion in holding the motion 

as filed untimely.1

 For the following reasons, we disagree and affirm. 

 *

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

1

 Appellant’s brief contains a second question presented: 

Did the trial court err when it entered a decree of divorce a vinculo 

matrimonii containing language stating that the parties had agreed 

that if the Court were to find the “Contract of Marriage’ dated July 

16, 1995 valid then the former marital residence would be awarded 

to Defendant, even though the parties did not agree to such matter 

as evidenced by motion and the Transcript of Proceedings on June 

12, 2008? 

Because the validity of the contract was determined in a separate appeal by the wife, we will not 

address the issue in this appeal. See Bailey v. Bailey, 54 Va. App. 209, 677 S.E.2d 56 (2009). 
- 2 - 

 “No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the 

objection was stated together 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.” Rule 5A:18. The 

purpose of “‘Rule 5A:18 is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider 

the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, 

reversals and mistrials.’” Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 422, 425 S.E.2d 521, 525 

(1992) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530, 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992)). 

 In this case, the record fails to establish: (1) that husband objected to the dismissal of his 

motion to designate as waste, and assuming he did, in fact, object to its dismissal (2) any grounds 

husband relied upon in support of his motion. Furthermore, nothing in the final decree of 

divorce indicates that husband’s motion to designate as waste was presented to, and dismissed 

by, the circuit court during the August 8, 2008 hearing. Contrary to husband’s assertion that he 

objected to the dismissal of his motion at the time the final decree of divorce was entered, the 

circuit court’s order contains no indication that either he, or his counsel, made such an objection. 

 Moreover, in husband’s motion to reconsider, he admits that “[a]lthough the entered 

divorce decree contains an objection to language within the decree it does not contain an 

objection to the denial of the motion.” Husband also states in his motion to reconsider that “[a] 

statement of facts would serve as a record for preservation of appeal regarding [husband’s] 

objection to the denial of the motion” and “[w]ithout establishment of a statement of facts there 

is no preservation of the record for appeal in regards to this issue.” The record contains 
- 3 - 

 transcripts of the evidentiary hearing and does not contain a statement of facts that conforms to 

Rule 5A:8(c).2

 Based on the record before us, we find that husband failed to make a timely objection to 

the dismissal of his motion at the time of the ruling. Therefore, the issue presented is 

procedurally defaulted, and we affirm the circuit court. 

Affirmed.

 2

 Appellant submitted a proposed written statement of facts to the trial court with respect 

to the hearing at which the final order was entered. The trial court rejected the proposed 

statement of facts as both inaccurate and unnecessary in view of the fact that no ore tenus

hearing was held at that time.