COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges McClanahan , Haley and Retir ed Judge Hodges ∗

CHERYL S. JOSEPH MEMORANDUM OPINION ∗∗ v. Record No. 2143-09-4 PER CURIAM MAY 4, 2010 BINOY GEORGE

FROM THE CIRCUIT C OURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY James H. Chamblin, Judge (Cheryl S. Joseph, pro se , on brief). (Binoy George, pro se , on brief).

Cheryl S. Joseph (wife) appeal s the final decree of divorce. Wife argues that the trial court erred by (1) not awarding her fifty percent of the funds that Binoy George (husband) transferred to his brother; (2) not dividing the fu nds that husband withdrew from the parties’ investment account after the separation; (3) not awarding her fifty pe rcent of the funds in husband’s bank accounts; (4) awarding her too little in spousal support; (5) not ordering husband to provide health insurance for their child and be responsi ble for seventy-one percent of any reasonable and necessary unreimbursed medical and dental expenses for any calendar year for the child; (6) awarding joint legal custody of the parties’ chil d, as opposed to sole legal cust ody to her; (7) not awarding her $23,500 for her attorney’s fees; an d (8) awarding her $500 for the security depo sit she paid to the settlement company when she rented back the marital re sidence after it sold . Husband presents several cross-errors. He argues that the trial cour t erred by (1) not imputi ng income to wife for

∗ Retired Judge Hodges took part in the consid eration of this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D).

∗∗ Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designa ted for publication.- 2 - spousal support purposes; (2) not awarding him one-ha lf of the real estate th at wife owns; (3) using the incorrect value for the 401(K) account; (4) awarding wife spousal support; (5) allowing wife to

relocate with their child to Kans as; (6) not awarding husband overnig ht visitation with the parties’ child and not allowing him to take the child to Indi a to visit family; (7) not awarding him $24,000 in attorney’s fees; and (8) not ordering that wife be responsib le for one-half of th e outstanding home loan at the time of separation. Wife has waived her arguments by failing to comply with Rule 5A:20, and husband has waived his arguments by failing to comply with Rule 5A:21. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. Wife and husband were married on April 5, 1999, separated on or about December 29, 2007, and divorced on September 4, 2009. Wife f iled a complaint for divorce on October 9, 2008, to which husband filed an answer and cross- complaint. Wife sought a divorce based on cruelty, and husband sought a divorce based on cr uelty, adultery, and constructive desertion. Both parties requested an award of equitable distribution and an award of spousal support. The parties have one child, for whom custody, visitati on, and child support needed to be decided. On March 12, 2009 and April 21, 2009, the trial court conducted a final hearing on the grounds of divorce, spousal support, equitable distribution, custody, visitation, child support, and attorney’s

fees. 1 The trial court issued a detailed letter op inion on July 6, 2009 and entered the final decree of divorce on September 4, 2009.

The trial court awarded the divorce to wife based on living separate and apart for more than one year because neither party proved fault grounds. The trial court granted joint legal custody of the parties’ child and primary phys ical custody to wife. Husband was granted

reasonable liberal visitation with the child after reasona ble notice to wife. The trial court found

1 There were no transcripts filed for th e March 12, 2009 and April 21, 2009 hearings. Wife submitted a statement of facts to the trial court, but it was not signed. The trial court issued a detailed letter opinion explaini ng its ruling, and we rely on that letter opinion for this appeal.- 3 - that it would not be in the child ’s best interests to return to Northern Virginia after having

relocated to Kansas with wife. After consider ing the factors in Code § 20-107.3, the trial court made an equitable distribution aw ard and divided the parties’ ma rital assets. The trial court declined to impute income to wife for spousal support purpo ses and found that she was not voluntarily unemployed. Wife was awarded sp ousal support in the amount of $2,300 per month, beginning July 2009 for a period of three years. Thereafter, she was granted a reservation for four years. Husband also was granted a reserv ation of spousal support for four years after the entry of the final decree. Child support was determined pursuant to the guidelines. Since neither party presented any eviden ce of health insurance for the child, the trial court did not order either party to be responsible for health insurance for the child. Neither party was awarded any attorney’s fees. Wife timely noted her appeal. Wife failed to comply with Rule 5A:20 in her brief; therefore, she waived her arguments,

and this Court will not consid er the merits of the case. Rule 5A:20(c) requires a “statement of the questions presented w ith a clear and exact reference to the page(s) of th e transcript, written statement, record, or appendix where each question was preserved in the trial court.” Rule 5A:20(e) mandates that ap pellant’s opening brief include “[t]he principles of la w, the argument, and the author ities relating to each question presented . . . .” Wife has the burden of showing that reversible error was committed. See Lutes v.

Alexander , 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992). Unsupported assertions of error “do not merit appellate consideration.” Buchanan v. Buchanan , 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Furthermore this Court “will no t search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Id. Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in or der to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of- 4 - [appellant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Bass , 6 Va. App. 38, 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) ( en banc ). “Even pro se litigants must comply with the rules of court.” Francis v. Francis , 30 Va. App. 584, 591, 518 S.E.2d 842, 846 (1999). Wife failed to comply with Rule 5A:20(c). She did not list any que stions presented. She recited portions of the part ies’ testimony and then stated her issu es with the trial court’s ruling in the section where she requested relief. Furthermor e, wife failed to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) because she failed to cite to any legal authority or principles of law. Likewise, husband failed to comply with Rule 5A:21 in his brief, so he waived his arguments. Rule 5A:21(b) states that the appellee’s brief shall contain a “statement of any additional questions the appellee wishes to present with a clear and exact reference to the page(s) of the transcript, written statement, record, or appe ndix where each additional question was preserved in the trial court.” Rule 5A:21(d) states that appellee’s brief shall include “[t]he principles of law, the argument, and the authoritie s relating to each question presented.” Husband did not list his additional questions presented. He responded to wife’s summary of the parties’ testimony and then recited the relief that he sought at the end of his brief. His brief did not include any citations to legal authority or principles of law to support his arguments. We find that wife’s failure to comply w ith Rule 5A:20(c) and Rule 5A:20(e) and husband’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:21(b) and Rule 5A:21(d) are significant, so we will not consider either party’s issues. 2 See Fadness v. Fadness , 52 Va. App. 833, 851, 667 S.E.2d 857, 866 (2008) (“If the part ies believed that the ci rcuit court erred, it was their duty to present

2 Since both parties waived th eir arguments by failing to co mply with Rule 5A:20 and Rule 5A:21, this Court does not reach the issue of e ither party’s compliance with Rule 5A:18.- 5 - that error to us with legal aut hority to support their contention.”); Parks v. Parks , 52 Va. App. 663, 664, 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008). For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ru ling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.