COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judge McCl anahan, Senior Judges Coleman and Annunziata

JUNIUS NELSON, JR. MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0830-05-2 PER CURIAM DECEMBER 13, 2005 GENOVEVE HINES NELSON

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF HENRICO COUNTY Gary A. Hicks, Judge (Robert D. Jacobs, on brief), for appellant. No brief for appellee.
Junius Nelson, Jr. (husband) appeals from the final decree of divorce dated March 4, 2005, granting Genoveve Hines Nelson (wife) a divor ce. On appeal, husband contends the trial court erred in (1) sustaining wi fe’s objections to his attempt to introduce certain equitable distribution evidence, and (2) fail ing to consider wife ’s 401-k and pension pl ans in its equitable distribution determination. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accord ingly, we summarily affirm the deci sion of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
BACKGROUND On appeal, we view the evidence and all reas onable inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire , 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - The parties married on August 5, 1995 and se parated on September 21, 2001. Wife filed a bill of complaint seeking a divorce from hus band on July 18, 2002. On June 30, 2004, the trial court entered a detailed domestic relations pretrial order governing all aspects of discovery. The record reveals wife complied with all the terms of the pretrial order a nd that husband failed to abide by the terms of the order. On October 12, 2004, the trial court conducted the prescheduled equitable distribution hearing. During the hearing, wife introduced exhibits previously submitted to husband’s counsel pursuant to the pretrial order. Husband attempte d to introduce certain exhibits which he had not earlier presented to wife, as re quired by the pretrial order. Th e court sustained wife’s objection to the introduction of the evid ence because of husband’s failure to comply with the order. Thereafter, husband obtained new counsel and filed a motion for a rehearing, asking that he be permitted to introduce the refused evidence . In its January 21, 2005 opinion letter, the trial court denied the motion, and set forth th e division of the parties’ property.
ANALYSIS
I. Appellant concedes he failed to comply with the disclosure require ments set forth in the pretrial order. The order provides the “[f]ailure to comply with any provisions of this Order by any party may result in an award of attorn ey fees and any other appropriate sanction.” Relying solely on Bowers v. Bowers , 4 Va. App. 610, 359 S.E.2d 546 (1987), appellant asserts a trial court “may not refuse or fail to give parties a reasonable opportunity to develop and present evidence of value in an equitable distribution hearing.”
In Bowers , this Court held that Virginia’s trial courts may, without doing violence to the [equitable distribution] statute, make a monetary award without giving consideration to the . . . va luation of every item of property, where the parties have been gi ven a reasonable opportunity to- 3 - provide the necessary evidence to prove . . . valuation but through their lack of diligence have failed to do so. Id. at 618, 359 S.E.2d at 551. In this case, husband was clearly afford ed a reasonable opportunity to provide the necessary evidence. However, husband squandered that opportunity by refusing to comply with the court’s pretrial order. Through his lack of diligence, husband failed to provide the evidence in question. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’ s decision to sustain wife’s objection to the introduction of th e evidence or in its denial of husband’s reconsideration motion.
II. Husband argues the trial court “erred in fa iling to consider and a ddress [wife’s] 401-k and pension plans . . . in making its e quitable distribution determination.” As noted above, husband failed to comply w ith the court’s pretrial order. Appellant acknowledges the trial court had the “discretion to reopen the hearing for consideration of evidence . . . .” However, he does not demons trate that the court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a rehearing. Indeed, as explained above, husband was provided ample opportunity to provide the evidence he now claims the court should have considered. The court permissibly made its award without consid ering the evidence in question. See id. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.