COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Beal es and Senior Judge Clements

ALYSA N. YOUNGSON MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1205-13-4 PER CURIAM APRIL 29, 2014 CHRISTOPHER E. BRAUTIGAM

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Jane Marum Roush, Judge (Alysa N. Youngson, pro se , on briefs). (Patrick R. Woolley; Woolley St out PLLC, on brief), for appellee.
Alysa N. Youngson appeals from an order which “denied/ dismissed” her bill of review. Youngson argues th at the trial court erred by (1) denying/dismis sing her bill of review without a hearing, “rather than enter a default judgment, afte r Mr. Brautigam entered an appearance, but failed to file an Answer or Demurrer”; (2) issuing a “permanent injunction (a) that wa s not pled or noticed and (b) when the court lacked jurisdiction”; (3) issu ing a “permanent injunction that (a) amounted to a Constitutionally-imp ermissible prior restrain t, (b) was vague and overbroad in both scope and duration, and (c) did so wi thout making the required findings of fact”; and (4) awarding attorney’s fees because “the award was contrary to the Par ties’ Property Settlement Agreement and counsel made false statements of fact in support of the requested amount .” By way of cross-error, Christopher E. Brautigam ar gues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for attorney’s fees and his motion for reconsider ation because the prop erty settlement agreem ent and final decree allowed for an award of attorney’s fees. Upon re viewing the record and brie fs of the parties, we

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - conclude that the arguments presen ted by the parties are without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. BACKGROUND On October 28, 2009, the part ies entered into a property se ttlement agreemen t (the PSA), which included a section t itled “No Harassment / Mu tual Cooperation.” Th e PSA was incorporated into the final decree of di vorce on November 10, 2009. In 2012, Brautigam filed a pe tition for a show cause against Youngson and alle ged that she violated the PSA’s anti-hara ssment clause. On May 24, 2012, the trial court entered a rule to show cause, requiring Youn gson “to show cause, if any she can, why she has failed to obey the aforesaid Decree of this court.” After several continuances, the parties pres ented evidence and argu ment on January 17, 2013. The trial court entered an order on January 22, 2013. It found that Youngson was in violation of the final decree and ordered her to pay $15, 990 of Brautigam’s a ttorney’s fees. The order also included a provisio n prohibiting Youngson fro m contacting Brautigam “for any reason that does not relate to the custody, visitation, or support of their dau ghter . . . .” Youngson noted her objection to the finding of contempt , but she did not appeal the order. 1 On May 3, 2013, Youngson file d a bill of review, pursuant to Code § 8.01-623. She asked the trial court “to re-exa mine and reverse, annul or otherwise m odify this Court’s Order of January 22, 2013.” On May 23, 2013, the trial court removed the matter from the docket. On June 7, 2013, Youngson file d a “Motion Seeking Leave of C ourt to File a Bill of Review in accordance with Va. Ann. Code § 8.01-623.” The parties appeared before the trial court on June 14, 2013. That same day, the trial court entered an order denying the motion for leave of court and

1 On February 1, 2013, Youngson filed a motion to stay the January 22, 2013 order and asked for time to prepare and file a motion to re consider. The record do es not include an order staying the January 22, 2013 order, nor doe s it contain a motion to reconsider.- 3 - denying Brautigam’s request for attorney’s fees. 2 The order also stated th at the “Motion for Bill of Review is denied/dismissed.” Youngson’s counse l endorsed the Ju ne 14, 2013 order as “Seen and not agreed as to motion to leave is de nied along with motion for bill of review is denied/dismissed.” This appeal followed. ANALYSIS Bill of Review – Assignment of Error #1 Youngson argues that the trial court erred in denying/dismissing her bill of review without a hearing. She contends the trial court should have entered a defau lt judgment because Brautigam did not file an answer or demurrer to he r bill of review. A court allowing a bill of review may award an injunction to the decree to be reviewed. But no bill of review shall be allowed to a final decree, unless it be exhibite d within six months next after such decree . . . . In no case shall such a bill be filed without the leave of court first obtained, unless it be for error of law apparent upon the face of the record. Code § 8.01-623. “[A] bill of review is limited in scope and is rarely utilized in Virginia pr ocedure. Indeed, in modern appellate practice wherein mo st litigants have a stat utory right to appeal from judgments of trial courts, use of a bill of review is discouraged.” Bl unt v. Lentz, 241 Va. 547, 550, 404 S.E.2d 62, 63-64 (1991). Youngson did not note her speci fic objection as raised in her first assignment of error on the June 14, 2013 order. See Rule 5A:18. However, in a bench trial, an appellant can preserve her issues for appeal in a motion to strike, in closing argument, in a motion to set aside the verdict, or

2 On July 3, 2013, Brautigam filed a motion to rec onsider the denial of the attorney’s fees and acknowledged that the trial court would lose jurisdiction over the matter on July 5, 2013. The record does not include an order to stay or suspend the June 14, 2013 order. On July 18, 2013, the trial court entered an order stating that it no longer had jurisdiction to consider the motion.- 4 - in a motion to reconsider. Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 515, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991) (en banc). Youngson did not file a motion to r econsider or to set aside the verdict. Contrary to Youngson’s assertio n, a hearing occurred on June 14, 2013. A tran script of the hearing was filed late and is not part of the record. See Rule 5A:8. Therefore, we do not know what arguments Youngson made at the hearing. Without a timely filed transcript, this Court is unable to determine whether Youngson’s first assi gnment of error was preserved. Rule 5A:18. January 22, 2013 order – Assignm ents of error #2, 3, and 4 Youngson argues that the trial court erred in ordering that sh e is not allowed to have any contact with Brautigam, except in matters associated with their da ughter. She contends the trial court erred in issuing a “permanent injunction” be cause it was not properly pled or noticed, so the court did not have jurisdiction to make such a ru ling. She also asserts that the injunction is unconstitutional, vague, and overly broad, and not based on findings of f act. Youngson raised these issues for the fi rst time in her bill of review. In addition, to the above argu ments, Youngson conten ds the trial court erred in ordering her to pay $15,990 of Brautiga m’s attorney’s fees because the award was contrary to the PSA. She also alleges that Brautigam ’s counsel made false statements regarding the amount of fees. As noted above, the transcript of the June 14, 2013 hearing was no t timely filed. The transcript of the January 22, 2013 hearing was filed at the same time, so it is not part of the record either. The transcripts for these two hearings are indispensable to the review of the second, third, and fourth assignments of error. See Anderson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 506, 508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77 (1992); Turner v. Commonw ealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99-100, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986). Furthermore, we note that Youngson’s notic e of appeal included the January 22, 2013 order, as well as the June 14, 2013 order. The January 22, 2013 order became final on February- 5 - 12, 2013, Rule 1:1, and the time to appeal the or der expired on February 21, 2013, Rule 5A:6(a). Youngson did not appeal the January 22, 2013 order, so it became the law of the case. See Norris v. Mitchell, 255 Va. 235, 240, 495 S.E.2d 809, 812 (1998) (holding that an order became final and the law of the case when it was not ap pealed and that the Court will consider that “order as correctly entere d”); Turner v. Turner, 47 Va. App. 76, 82 n.1, 622 S.E.2d 263, 266 n.1 (2005). Brautigam’s request for attorney’s fees Brautigam argues that th e trial court erred in denying his mo tion for attorney’s fees and his motion to reconsider. He contends the PSA allowed for an award of attorney ’s fees. Brautigam did not file a pleading prior to the Ju ne 14, 2013 hearing, so we assume that his request for attorney’s fees was made orally at the hear ing. As noted above, the transcri pt for the June 14, 2013 hearing was not timely filed, and it is indispensable to a review of th is assignment of er ror. Without the transcript, and because Brautigam di d not note an objectio n on the order, we are unable to determine whether Brautigam preserved th is assignment of error. After the hearing, Brautigam filed his motio n to reconsider on July 3, 2013. He acknowledged that the trial court would lose jurisdic tion over the matter on Ju ly 5, 2013. Although Brautigam timely filed his motion to reconsider, he did not seek an order staying or suspending the June 14, 2013 order. Th e trial court lost jurisdiction to cons ider the motion to reconsider and entered an order according ly on July 18, 2013. Brautigam also asks this Court to award hi m attorney’s fees incu rred on appeal. See O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 23 Va. App. 690, 695, 479 S.E.2d 98, 100 (1996). Having reviewed and considered the entire record in this case, we hold that Brautigam is entitled to a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs, and we re mand for the trial court to set a reasonable award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred by him in this appeal.- 6 - CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ru ling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27. We remand this case to the trial court for dete rmination and award of th e appropriate appellate attorney’s fees and costs, whic h also should include any additi onal attorney’s fees and costs incurred at the remand hearing. Affirmed and remanded.