Title: Whiting v. Whiting
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 001133
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: June 8, 2001

VIRGINIA: 
 
 
In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 
Building in the City of Richmond on Friday, the 8th day of June, 
2001. 
 
Darrell Lee Whiting, 
 
 
 
 
 
    Appellant, 
 
against 
Record No. 001133 
Court of Appeals No. 1037-99-3  
 
Cynthia Jan Fisher Whiting, 
 
 
 
 
     Appellee. 
 
Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the 
Court of Appeals of Virginia on the 11th day of April, 
2000. 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of 
counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is error in the 
judgment appealed from. 
The proceedings and facts are undisputed and are fully set 
forth in the Court of Appeals' opinion.  Whiting v. Whiting, 32 
Va. App. 192, 526 S.E.2d 806 (2000).  There, the Court of 
Appeals held, inter alia, that the final decree of divorce 
entered by the Circuit Court of Alleghany County on January 18, 
1985, was void ab initio "because husband received no notice of 
the final decree and never endorsed it."  Id. at 197, 526 S.E.2d 
at 808; see Rule 1:13 (endorsement of draft decree by, or 
reasonable notice of presentation thereof to, counsel of record 
required unless dispensed with by court).  The Court of Appeals 
further ruled that a pendente lite decree entered by the circuit 
court on June 15, 1984, directing the husband to pay spousal 
support, remained in effect until the cause was ultimately 
dismissed from the docket by a valid court decree.  Id. 
After the Court of Appeals' decision, this Court held that 
a decree or order entered in violation of Rule 1:13 is merely 
voidable, not void ab initio.  Napert v. Napert, 261 Va. 45, 540 
S.E.2d 882 (2001); Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 541 S.E.2d 549 
(2001).  A voidable decree or order is not subject to collateral 
attack and must be challenged within 21 days of its entry 
pursuant to Rule 1:1, by a bill of review within the time 
prescribed by Code § 8.01-623, or by an independent action 
pursuant to Code § 8.01-428.  Singh, 261 Va. at 51-52, 541 
S.E.2d at 551. 
In the present case, no such challenge was made; therefore, 
this Court holds that the final decree of divorce entered 
January 18, 1985, remained in full force and effect.  This Court 
further holds that the pendente lite decree awarding spousal 
support only applied during the pendency of litigation and was 
terminated when the cause was dismissed by the final decree of 
divorce.  See Code § 20-103; accord Smith v. Smith, 4 Va. App. 
148, 151, 354 S.E.2d 816, 818 (1987).  Thus, the husband was 
obligated to pay spousal support only for the period between 
June 15, 1984, and January 18, 1985. 
 
2
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is 
reversed; the trial court's decree, entered April 8, 1999, is 
vacated; and the trial court's decree, entered April 16, 1999, 
is vacated to the extent that it is inconsistent with this 
Court's holding herein.  The case is remanded to the Court of 
Appeals with direction that the case be remanded to the said 
circuit court for a determination of the amount of spousal 
support, if any, that is owing to the appellee. 
This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals and 
to the Circuit Court of Alleghany County and shall be published 
in the Virginia Reports. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A Copy, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Teste: 
 
 
 
David B. Beach, 
Clerk 
 
3