Court Opinion

ID: 9897777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:24:59.603511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:02.511981
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Huff, O’Brien and AtLee
              Argued at Lexington, Virginia

              EVAN ELIJAH PAXTON
                                                                             MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
              v.     Record No. 1494-22-3                                    JUDGE RICHARD Y. ATLEE, JR.
                                                                                 SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
              JENNIFER SUE PAXTON

                                   FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY
                                              James W. Updike, Jr., Judge

                              Brian R. Moore (The Moore Law Firm PLLC, on brief), for
                              appellant.

                              Monica T. Monday (Robert U. Pauley, Jr.; Gentry Locke; Robert U.
                              Pauley, Jr., P.C., on brief), for appellee.

                     The circuit court entered a final decree of divorce, ending the marriage of appellant Evan

              Paxton (“husband”) and Jennifer Paxton (“wife”).1 On appeal, husband argues that the circuit court

              erred “when it held that Rule 1:13 notice requirements were satisfied and waived endorsement of

              the Final Decree of Divorce by husband’s counsel at the conclusion of the ex parte hearing.” He

              also contends that the circuit court erred in its valuation of two separate bank accounts. For the

              following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.2

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                     1
                      We recognize that “former husband” and “former wife” are more accurate, but we use
              less cumbersome titles in this memorandum opinion for ease of reference.
                     2
                      Wife asked this Court to strike husband’s amended opening brief, arguing that the
              amended brief changed the substance of the original opening brief in violation of this Court’s
              order. This request is denied.
                                            I. BACKGROUND

        Husband and wife married in 2008. They separated in 2020, and wife filed for divorce on

November 30, 2021. The circuit court conducted evidentiary hearings on April 21, 2022, and June

13, 2022. At the conclusion of the June 13 hearing, the circuit court announced its rulings from the

bench. It ordered wife’s counsel to draft an order reflecting its rulings. On June 17, 2022, the

circuit court issued a letter opinion, and it ordered that the oral rulings be transcribed and

incorporated into the final decree by reference “so as to comply with certain statutory requirements

of written findings.” The letter opinion also indicated that the parties could waive this requirement

by mutual agreement.

        Wife’s counsel drafted a proposed final decree, and he sent it via email to husband’s counsel

for review. When he did not receive a response, wife’s counsel reached out to the circuit court’s

judicial assistant, also via email, to set a date for a hearing to present the proposed decree. At some

point after that, husband’s counsel responded. Counsel for both parties communicated multiple

times via email with the court’s judicial assistant about setting a date for the presentment hearing.

During these communications, husband’s counsel indicated that he was waiting to receive the

transcript. However, he then indicated that he would need time for a hearing on a motion to

reconsider, which could be done at the same time as the presentation of the decree. The judicial

assistant responded, asking if a hearing was still needed and offering to send available dates and

times. Husband’s counsel responded in the affirmative, stating that a hearing was needed.3

        On August 16, 2022, the judicial assistant sent out a list of available dates. Wife’s counsel

responded, agreeing to September 1, but husband’s counsel did not respond. On August 22, wife’s

counsel indicated that husband’s counsel had had enough time to respond and asked the judicial

        3
         Husband’s counsel responded, “Yes a reconsideration hearing is needed.” In his prior
emails, however, he indicated that the parties could present the final order at the same time as the
hearing on the motion to reconsider.
                                                -2-
assistant to set the hearing for September 1. On August 22, the judicial assistant sent an email to

both parties’ counsel confirming that the matter had been scheduled for September 1. On August

25, wife’s counsel sent husband an email with the notice of presentment and the proposed final

decree attached.

       Husband’s counsel did not attend the hearing on September 1, 2022. The circuit court asked

whether wife’s counsel had given notice to husband’s counsel, and wife’s counsel responded that he

did give notice. The circuit court waited approximately fifteen minutes to give husband’s counsel

time to appear, but he did not. At that point, the circuit court concluded that it would dispense with

the endorsement requirements under Rule 1:13. The trial judge hand wrote on the final decree:

“Notice of presentation having been given, the Court dispenses with defendant’s endorsement in

accordance with Rule 1:13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.”

       On September 19, 2022, husband’s counsel received a copy of the final decree in the mail,

which had been entered on September 1. On September 21, he filed two documents with the court.

First, he filed a “Motion to Suspend or Vacate Final Decree of Divorce entered September 1, 2022.”

In his motion, he argued that the decree was entered in violation of Rule 1:12 and Rule 1:13 “with

regard to service and notice.” Second, he filed written objections to the decree.

       Also on September 21, 2022, husband’s counsel appeared before the circuit court. He

admitted to communicating with the judicial assistant and opposing counsel. He also acknowledged

that the email, to which all communications were sent, was his correct email address. He indicated

that he assumed the conversation was over once he informed them that he was waiting for the

transcript and he “didn’t see a new e-mail pop up.” Husband’s counsel denied knowing about the

hearing, but the circuit court pointed out that the communications going back and forth were

discussions about the hearing. The court ultimately denied husband’s motion. Husband’s counsel

                                                 -3-
did not ask the court for a ruling on the written objections to the final decree. Husband now appeals

to this Court.

                                              II. ANALYSIS

   A. The circuit court did not err when it found that husband had actual notice of the hearing to
      enter the divorce decree.

        Husband argues that the circuit court erred when it concluded “that Rule 1:13 notice

requirements were satisfied and waived endorsement of the Final Decree.” He contends that the

notice provided did not meet the requirements of Rule 1:13 and Code § 20-99.1:1.4

        On appeal, husband relies heavily on the requirements of Code § 20-99.1:1 to argue why the

circuit court erred in concluding that notice was given. But Rule 5A:18 provides that “[n]o ruling of

the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with

reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling.” In the court below, husband did not argue that the

requirements of Code § 20-99.1:1 were not met; he did not mention Code § 20-99.1:1 at all. He

stated only that the requirements of Rule 1:12 and Rule 1:13 were not met. Husband argued that by

raising notice generally, he implicitly raised the issue of the statute. But husband did not raise

notice generally, he raised Rule 1:12 and Rule 1:13 specifically. As we have repeatedly held,

“[m]aking one specific argument on an issue does not preserve a separate legal point on the same

issue for review.” Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 760 (2003) (en banc). Thus,

husband’s notice arguments about Rule 1:12 and Rule 1:13 did not preserve his separate arguments

about Code § 20-99.1:1 for review.

        4
          Husband’s assignment of error also contends that the notice did not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 1:12 and Rule 4:15. But he does not address either rule in the argument
section of his brief. Because he has failed to do so, this portion of his assignment of error is
abandoned. See Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 458, 471 (2007) (“Because [appellant] has
failed to brief this assignment of error, it is abandoned.”).
                                                   -4-
       Husband’s remaining argument is essentially that he did not receive notice of the

presentment hearing as required by Rule 1:13. Rule 1:13 provides,

               Drafts of orders and decrees must be endorsed by counsel of
               record, or reasonable notice of the time and place of presenting
               such drafts together with copies thereof must be served pursuant to
               Rule 1:12 upon all counsel of record who have not endorsed them.

               Compliance with this Rule and with Rule 1:12 may be modified or
               dispensed with by the court in its discretion.

The purpose of this rule is to “protect parties without notice.” Hickson v. Hickson, 34 Va. App.

246, 250 (2001) (quoting Davis v. Mullins, 251 Va. 141, 147 (1996)).

       Although a circuit court may modify or dispense with the requirements of Rule 1:13, the

Supreme Court has found that there are circumstances where it is an abuse of discretion to do so.

See, e.g., Rosillo v. Winters, 235 Va. 268, 271-73 (1988) (abuse of discretion to enter order

without notice when attorneys disagreed over the contents of the draft order); Iliff v. Richards,

221 Va. 644, 649 (1980) (abuse of discretion when a cross claim was eliminated by order entered

without notice to cross claimant); Cofer v. Cofer, 205 Va. 834, 836-37 (1965) (abuse of

discretion where child support was eliminated by order entered without notice), overruled on

other grounds, Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48 (2001). Husband contends that this case is similar

and that entry of the decree without notice was an abuse of discretion because this was a

contested case and the decree contains “misrecitals of fact.” But this case is unlike Iliff, Rosillo,

and Cofer, where the trial courts dispensed with the notice requirement and entered the orders

without notice. The circuit court here did not dispense with the notice requirement. Rather, it

found that husband had actual notice of the presentment hearing.

       And, despite husband’s arguments to the contrary, the record supports the circuit court’s

conclusion that husband had actual notice of the hearing. Husband’s counsel confirmed that the

communications were sent to his correct email; he even responded multiple times from that

                                                 -5-
email. In fact, husband’s counsel participated in a weeks-long email conversation with opposing

counsel and the circuit court’s judicial assistant about this very presentment hearing. Although

husband’s counsel did indicate that he was waiting for a transcript, he also subsequently

responded yes when the judicial assistant asked if a date was still needed for a hearing. It was

after this affirmative response that the judicial assistant sent out the list of dates, including

September 1.

        Beyond that, both the judicial assistant and opposing counsel sent husband’s counsel

emails with notice of the hearing. On August 22, 2022, the judicial assistant sent an email to

both parties, confirming that the hearing was scheduled for September 1, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. On

August 25, 2022, wife’s counsel sent husband an email with the notice of presentation and a draft

of the decree.5 Given husband’s counsel’s participation in the email conversation about the

presentment hearing, the fact that multiple emails notifying him of the date and time of the

hearing were sent to his email, and his acknowledgement that the email address to which

everything was sent was his correct email address, the circuit court did not err in finding that he

had actual notice of the hearing, despite his claims that he “didn’t see a new email pop up.”

    B. Husband’s argument that the circuit court abused its discretion when it valued the bank
       accounts does not comply with Rule 5A:20.

        Husband argues that the circuit court erred when it treated two bank accounts “as distinct

marital assets for equitable distribution” and gave them both a value. He contends that this is error

because he traced the funds showing that the funds were the same funds, transferred from one

account to the other prior to the evidentiary hearing. This argument, however, is waived because he

did not provide any legal support for his position as required by Rule 5A:20(e).

        5
          Husband’s counsel had also received a copy of the draft decree in July, prior to the
discussions about setting a date for the hearing. Beyond mentioning an alleged mistake of the
circuit court, he did not mention any other problems with the draft decree.
                                                -6-
        “Under Rule 5A:20(e), an appellant must supply this Court with principles of law and

authorities in support of a particular argument.” Ceres Marine Terminals v. Armstrong, 59

Va. App. 694, 708 (2012). “A court of review is entitled to have the issues clearly defined and to

be cited pertinent authority. The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may

dump the burden of argument and research.” Id. (quoting Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833,

850 (2008)). If the failure to comply with the rule is significant, it “will result in waiver of the

argument on appeal.” Id.

        Here, husband did not cite a single legal authority in support of his argument. In fact, the

only authority husband cites is for the standard of review. If husband believes that the circuit

court erred, it is his duty “to present that error to us with legal authority to support [his]

contention.” Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 349, 352 (2012) (alteration in original)

(quoting Fadness, 52 Va. App. at 851). Because we find this omission significant, husband’s

argument is waived.6

        6
          Additionally, we note that husband’s argument was not preserved in accordance with
Rule 5A:18, which requires “that an objection to a trial court’s action or ruling be made timely
and with specificity in order to preserve an issue for appeal.” Bethea v. Commonwealth, 68
Va. App. 487, 498 (2018). This allows a trial court the opportunity to correct any error and
“avoid[s] unnecessary appeals by affording the trial judge an opportunity to rule intelligently on
objections.” Id. (quoting Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 258, 267 (2014)). But “when a
party fails to obtain a ruling on a matter presented to a trial court, there is ‘no ruling [for this
Court] to review on appeal.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 41
Va. App. 61, 71 (2003)). Here, husband filed written objections with the circuit court, but he did
not obtain a ruling on his objections. Thus, there is no ruling for this Court to review on appeal.
        Husband contends that this issue should be preserved under Code § 8.01-384 because the
final decree was entered without proper notice. Code § 8.01-384 provides, in relevant part, “if a
party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an
objection shall not thereafter prejudice him on motion for a new trial or on appeal.” Even if
husband were correct about the decree being entered without proper notice, he still had ample
opportunity to object. The circuit court made its ruling from the bench on June 13. Husband had
the months between June 13 and the time the decree was entered on September 1 to file a motion
to reconsider. Despite indicating his intention to do so, he did not file such a motion. Thus, we
find that husband’s lack of objection is not saved by Code § 8.01-384.
                                                 -7-
                                  III. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.

                                                                      Affirmed.

                                         -8-