COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Mc Clanahan, Haley and Senior Ju dge Willis

DAVID B. BRIGGMAN MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1911-09-4 PER CURIAM APRIL 27, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF CHIL D SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

ex rel . CHRISTINA R. PITTMAN

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY J. Howe Brown, Judge Designate (David B. Briggman, pro se , on brief). (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Atto rney General; Cr aig M. Burshem, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Beth J. Edwards, Regional Senior Assistant Attorney General; Nancy J. Crawford, Regional Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

David B. Briggman (father) ap peals an order holding him in contempt for violating a child support order. Father lists several questions pr esented related to an or der dated April 4, 2001: (1) whether the trial court entered a valid judgment when the Commonwealth fail ed to participate in father’s appeal at the circuit c ourt level; (2) whet her the trial court erred by imposing an improper purge clause and converting a crimin al proceeding into a civil procee ding; (3) whether the trial court erred by assuming subject matter jurisdiction when father failed to pay the $25,000 appeal bond; and (4) whether the trial court e rred by failing to grant him a de novo hearing pursuant to Code § 16.1-136. Father further argues (1) the Code, as it exis ted prior to July 1, 2008, prohibited non-attorney employees of the Di vision of Child Support Enforcem ent (DCSE) from signing and

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - filing pleadings which contained legal arguments and/or conclusions; (2) orders obtained by pleadings signed by non-attorneys are void ab initio and the trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear any procee ding brought by non- attorneys; (3) the application of the 2008 amendments to cases adjudi cated prior to July 1, 2008 constitute a “bill of attainde r” and violate the United States and Virginia consti tutions; (4) the trial court erred by proceeding with an amended pleading by DCSE, when DCSE did not obtain leav e of court to file the amended pleading and no one objected to the amended plead ing at trial; (5) the “Standard Pa yment Plan Agreement,” entered into by father, did not contain an “intelligent wa iver” of any further notic e of a driver’s license suspension; (6) DCSE was require d to petition the juve nile court under Code § 63.2-1937 for a suspension of father’s driver’s license; (7) a circuit court judge, who previously recused herself, erred by entering an amended order ex parte without notice to fa ther; and (8) DCSE’s ex parte filings are invalid because father had no notice of such filings. DCSE argues that (1) father’s appeal is moot because he paid his child support arrearage in full and the child is emancipated; (2) father failed to meet the requirements of Rules 5A:20 and 5A:25; theref ore, his questions presented are waived; and (3) father’s a ppeal should be dismissed based on the doctrines of res judicata , collateral estoppel, and the law of the case because father has previously litigated all defenses he now attempts to raise in the case at bar. Upon revi ewing the record and brie fs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is moot and dismiss the appeal. 1

BACKGROUND Father owed child support to Christina R. Pittma n (mother) for their daughter. Their daughter became emancipated in 2002.

1 Because we dismiss the case as being moot, father’s questions presented and the two additional arguments raised by DCSE will not be considered.- 3 - On April 8, 2008, DCSE file d a motion for show cause summ ons, alleging that father had not complied with a previous orde r in which the trial court held that father was to pay $519 per month toward child support arrears. On October 9, 2008, the JDR co urt sustained father’s demurrer

to the show cause motion. 2 The JDR court dismissed DCSE’s ru le for show cause. DCSE appealed

to the trial court. On July 27, 2009, the trial c ourt heard the parties’ evidence and argument. On July 31, 2009, the trial court entered an or der finding father in civil contem pt. Father’s arrearages totaled $13,534.85 through July 27, 2009. Father wa s remanded to jail for twelve months, with a purge clause of $13,534.85 if paid before August 5, 2009, or $1 3,534.85 plus interest if paid after August 5, 2009. On July 31, 2009, father purged himself by paying the amount owed in full and was released from jail. The court en tered an order on Augu st 10, 2009, which rele ased the purge funds

to DCSE.

ANALYSIS DCSE argues that father’s appeal is moot becau se father paid all of the child support arrears in full on July 31, 20 09. DCSE contends the matter is resolved. “The duty of this court . . . is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of la w which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach , 182 Va. 642, 644, 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944). See also Hallmark v. Personnel Agency, Inc. v. Jones , 207 Va. 968, 971, 154 S.E.2d 5, 7 (1967) (citations omitted).

2 The JDR court entered the order on December 8, 2008, nunc pro tunc to October 17, 2008.- 4 - “[M]ootness has two aspects: ‘when the issu es presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty , 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (quoting Powell v. McCormack , 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). Since father paid the contested amount in full, there are no “live” matters. The child is emancipated, and no further sums are owed. Fath er is not entitled to restitution for child support he previously paid. Wilson v. Wilson , 25 Va. App. 752, 760, 492 S.E.2d 495, 499 (1997) (citing

Reid v. Reid , 245 Va. 409, 415, 429 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1993) (hol ding that the trial court had no statutory or inherent authority to order restitution of spous al support previ ously paid)). See also

Nordstrom v. Nordstrom , 50 Va. App. 257, 266-67, 649 S.E.2d 200, 205 (2007). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See Hallmark , 207 Va. at 971, 154 S.E.2d at 7 (dismissing the case as moot); Hankins , 182 Va. at 644, 29 S.E.2d at 832 (same).

Dismissed.