COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Fitzpatrick and 

 Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

KAREN IRENE SABEAN SCHLIEPER 

v. Record No. 2219-94-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

CHARLES ROY SCHLIEPER OCTOBER 17, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY 

James W. Haley, Jr., Judge 

 Albert H. Jacoby for appellant. 

 Joan C. McKenna (Rae H. Ely; Rae H. Ely & Associates, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 In this domestic appeal, Karen Irene Sabean Schlieper (wife) 

argues that the trial court erred in: (1) entering the final 

decree when she did not receive notice of entry or a copy of the 

decree; (2) refusing to hold a hearing on wife's exceptions to 

the commissioner's report or to allow her to present additional 

evidence; and (3) awarding husband $3500 in attorney's fees. 

Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court. 

 BACKGROUND

 Charles Roy Schlieper (husband) filed a bill of complaint 

requesting a divorce on December 17, 1992, and served wife at the 

marital residence, 38 Hidden Lake Drive, Stafford, Virginia. He 

served Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents 

on January 12, 1993. Wife did not respond until April 8, 1993, 

and provided incomplete answers. In November 1993, husband filed 
 2 

a motion to compel discovery, a motion to inspect the marital 

residence, and a notice to take wife's deposition. Wife agreed 

to the inspection and deposition, and husband withdrew the 

motions. Wife did not appear for the inspection or deposition 

scheduled for December 10, 1993. 

 The trial court referred the case to a commissioner in 

chancery on August 9, 1993. The commissioner scheduled a hearing 

for January 17, 1994. Before the hearing on January 12, 1994, 

wife's attorney withdrew from the case. The commissioner refused 

to continue the case. At the January 17, 1994 hearing, wife 

presented no evidence but reserved her right to do so at a later 

date. Wife made no motion to present additional evidence, and 

after more than six months elapsed, the commissioner submitted 

his report on August 5, 1994. In his report, the commissioner 

recommended that the trial court: (1) deny any motion by wife to 

present evidence, and (2) award husband $3500 in attorney's fees 

for discovery abuse by wife. The commissioner mailed a copy of 

his report to the marital residence, the address where wife had 

earlier been served. Wife did not receive notice of the report 

until August 18, 1994. Wife filed exceptions to the report on 

September 1, 1994, more than ten days after entry of the 

commissioner's report. 

 On September 26, 1994, husband mailed notice of entry of the 

final decree of divorce on October 3, 1994, and a copy of the 

proposed final decree to wife at the marital residence. Wife 
 3 

failed to appear on October 3, 1994, and the trial court entered 

the final decree. Wife never provided the clerk with any address 

other than the one at which she was originally served. 

NOTICE OF FINAL DECREE

 Wife argues that she never received notice of entry of the 

final decree or a copy of the final decree because husband mailed 

the notice and decree to the wrong address. She asserts that the 

mailing address of the marital residence is different from the 

street address. 

 Code § 8.01-319(A) provides as follows: 

 A party, who appears pro se in an action, 

shall file with the clerk of the court in 

which the action is pending a written 

statement of his place of residence and 

mailing address, and shall inform the clerk 

in writing of any changes of residence and 

mailing address during the pendency of the 

action. The clerk and all parties to the 

action may rely on the last written statement 

filed as aforesaid. The court in which the 

action is pending may dispense with such 

notice for failure of the party to file the 

statement herein provided for or may require 

notice to be given in such manner as the 

court may determine. 

See also Eddine v. Eddine, 12 Va. App. 760, 764, 406 S.E.2d 914, 

917 (1991) (holding that, if a pro se party fails to provide an 

address statement, the court may dispense with notice of 

proceedings). In Eddine, the Court explained the reasoning 

behind Code § 8.01-319(A) as follows: 

 The failure to provide an address sufficient 

to ensure such notice may prevent a case from 

proceeding in an orderly manner. If a 

litigant wishes to be informed of the 

proceedings, he or she must either keep the 
 4 

court advised of where service may be 
 5 

 accomplished or be represented by counsel 

upon whom service may be had. 

Id. (citation omitted). 

 In this case, wife failed to provide a written statement of 

her address to the clerk of the trial court after her attorney 

withdrew from the case. Husband mailed the notice and a copy of 

the decree to the marital residence, where wife was served with 

the bill of complaint. Wife's own failure to notify the court 

and husband of her proper mailing address resulted in her not 

receiving notice of entry of the final decree. Under these 

circumstances, the trial court did not err in entering the final 

decree in wife's absence. 

FAILURE TO HOLD HEARING 

 Wife next contends that the trial judge erred in failing to 

hold a hearing allowing her to argue her exceptions to the final 

decree or to present additional evidence. 

 Code § 8.01-615 provides as follows: 

 A cause may be heard by the court upon a 

commissioner's report. Subject to the Rules 

of Court regarding dispensing with notice of 

taking proofs and other proceedings, 

reasonable notice of such hearing shall be 

given to counsel of record and to parties not 

represented by counsel. Exceptions to the 

commissioner's report shall be filed within 

ten days after the report has been filed with 

the court, or for good cause shown, at a 

later time specified by the court. 

(Emphasis added). 

 In this case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion 

in refusing to hold a hearing allowing wife to argue her 
 6 

exceptions and to present evidence. Wife filed her exceptions on 

September 1, 1994, more than ten days after the filing of the 

commissioner's report on August 5, 1994 and, additionally, more 

than ten days after she received notice of the report on August 

18, 1994. Wife had over six months to request to present 

additional evidence or argument to the commissioner and failed to 

do so. Upon this record, we find no abuse of discretion on the 

part of the trial court. 

 ATTORNEY'S FEES

 Lastly, wife argues that the trial court erred in awarding 

husband $3500 in attorney's fees because husband failed to 

provide an itemization of the expenses incurred. 

 "An award of attorney's fees is a matter submitted to the 

trial court's sound discretion and is reviewable on appeal only 

for an abuse of discretion." Graves v. Graves, 4 Va. App. 326, 

333, 357 S.E.2d 554, 558 (1987). "Although evidence of time 

expended by counsel and the charges made to the client is the 

preferred basis upon which a trial judge can formulate a 

reasonable award, it is not the only basis." Davis v. Davis, 8 

Va. App. 12, 17, 377 S.E.2d 640, 643 (1989) (quoting McGinnis v. 

McGinnis, 1 Va. App. 272, 277, 338 S.E.2d 159, 162 (1985)). 

 In this case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion 

in awarding husband $3500 in attorney's fees. The record shows 

wife's continuing abuse of the discovery process. Her responses 

to husband's interrogatories were late and incomplete, and she 
 7 

failed to attend the inspection of the marital residence and the 

deposition scheduled for December 10, 1993. As this Court noted 

in Davis, "[a] trial court is aware of the usual charges within 

its jurisdiction, and 'a relatively modest award may be found to 

be reasonable.'" 8 Va. App. at 17, 377 S.E.2d at 643. Under 

these circumstances, the attorney's fees award was reasonable. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.