COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman 

BRENDA LEE SCOTT JACKSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0995-01-2 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 

JAMES ELIAS JACKSON 

 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUISA COUNTY 

Herbert A. Pickford, III, Judge Pro Tempore 

 (Darryl A. Parker, on brief), for appellant. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

 Brenda Jackson (wife) contends the trial court erred in: (1) 

denying her sole custody of the parties' minor children; and (2) 

awarding her $600 per month spousal support for eighteen months. 

Upon reviewing the record and wife's brief, we summarily affirm 

the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. 

 The parties married on November 18, 1994. Two children 

were born of the marriage. The parties separated on May 9, 

1999. 

 On January 31, 2001, the trial court conducted an 

evidentiary hearing to determine issues of equitable 

distribution, support and custody. The trial court awarded wife 

spousal support of $600 per month "for a period of eighteen 
months in order to help her achieve employment or 

self-employment." As to child custody, the trial court awarded 

husband legal and physical custody of the children. 

 On February 6, 2001, the trial court issued a letter 

opinion setting forth its findings and holdings and the bases 

upon which those determinations were made. It directed 

husband's attorney to "draft a decree consistent with the 

opinions hereon expressed, and submit the same to Mr. Parker for 

his endorsement." 

 On March 15, 2001, the trial court entered the final decree 

of divorce. Wife's attorney endorsed the decree, "Seen and 

Objected To." Wife filed no transcripts or statement of facts. 

On March 27, 2001 the wife filed a motion to rehear, which was 

limited to her assertion that she had new evidence regarding 

husband's alleged homosexual activity. Wife's motion to rehear 

also "request[ed] possession of the marital home, because it 

would serve the best interest of the children." No hearing was 

conducted on the motion. On April 18, 2001, more than 

twenty-one days after entry of the March 15, 2001 final decree, 

the trial court entered the following order: 

This cause came to be heard on the fourth 

day of April, 2001, upon the Defendant's 

Motion to Reopen and the argument of 

counsel. 

 WHEREFORE, on the basis of the cited 

authorities, the Defendant's motion to 

Reopen is hereby DENIED. 

- 2 -
 The record on appeal contains no transcript of the April 4, 

2001 hearing or a memorandum demonstrating what arguments wife 

made and upon what legal authority she relied. 

 On appeal, wife contends the trial court erroneously "based 

its decision on custody" upon "mere speculation" that husband 

"would take steps to regain the [marital] home." She also 

argues that spousal support was inadequate and that "the court 

is authorized to order appropriate periodic spousal support to 

extend for the lifetime of the parties." 

 "[E]ndorsing a decree 'seen and objected to' does not 

preserve an issue for appeal unless the record further reveals 

that the issue was properly raised for consideration by the 

trial court." Konefal v. Konefal, 18 Va. App. 612, 615, 446 

S.E.2d 153, 155 (1994); see also Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 

514-17, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738-39 (1991) (en banc). Thus, while 

wife did object to the entry of the final order, she did not 

object to any specific ruling or state her "grounds therefor," 

as required by the rule. In addition, wife did not specify in 

her motion for rehearing the objections she now makes on appeal. 

 "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. Absent any specific objections to the 

trial court's ruling, wife failed to preserve any issues for 

- 3 -
appeal. See Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 422-23, 425 

S.E.2d 521, 525 (1992) (trial court must be alerted to precise 

issue to which a party objects). Moreover, because the trial 

court stated that it considered the factors in Code § 20-107.1 

in determining spousal support and the factors in Code 

§ 20-124.3 when determining custody, the record does not reflect 

any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice 

exceptions to Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, the decision of the 

trial court is summarily affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

- 4 -