Court Opinion

ID: 9897754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:24:40.503442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:43.409112
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges O’Brien, Ortiz and Senior Judge Haley
UNPUBLISHED

              MONTE L. LEWIS
                                                                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.      Record No. 0167-23-2                                           PER CURIAM
                                                                                    OCTOBER 3, 2023
              VATRESE SHARNISSA MYRICK

                                 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
                                               Claire G. Cardwell, Judge

                               (Misty D. Whitehead; JustLaw, PLLC, on brief), for appellant.

                               No brief or argument for appellee.1

                      Monte L. Lewis (father) appeals a visitation order that permits Vatrese Sharnissa Myrick

              (mother) to relocate their shared children to Florida. Father argues that the circuit court erred in

              finding that mother proved a material change in circumstances and modifying the existing court

              order was in the children’s best interests. Father also contends that the circuit court erred in finding

              there was “an independent benefit” to the children supporting their relocation to Florida and that the

              relocation was in the children’s best interests. Finally, father asserts that the circuit court abused its

              discretion in finding that the relocation would not cause “a significant adverse impact” to his

              relationship with the children.

                      Father failed to comply with the notice requirements of Rule 5A:8(c) when he filed a

              written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript and as such, the record on appeal is insufficient

              for this Court to reach the issues father raises. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

                      *
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                      1
                       The children’s guardian ad litem, Stephanie S. Henkle, submitted a letter notifying the
              Court of her support for Vatrese Sharnissa Myrick in this appeal. Rule 5A:19(d).
After examining the brief and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is

unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a).

                                          BACKGROUND2

        Father and mother are the biological parents to two minor children, who were five and six

years old at the time of the circuit court hearing. On November 18, 2021, the City of Richmond

Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) awarded joint legal custody to the

parties and primary physical custody to mother. In addition to establishing a summer and holiday

schedule, the JDR court held that father could visit with the children every other weekend and on

Wednesday evenings.

        On July 15, 2022, mother notified the JDR court that she intended to relocate with the

children to Florida in less than one month. Upon learning of mother’s pending relocation, father

moved to amend visitation, enjoin mother from relocating with the children, and schedule an

emergency hearing. On August 8, 2022, the JDR court entered an order, modifying father’s

visitation to one weekend per month and the summer, defined as the second week of summer break

until the weekend before school starts. The JDR court held that mother was responsible for the

transportation and that all other provisions in the previous visitation order remained in full force and

effect. Father appealed the JDR court’s rulings, and mother and the children moved to Florida.

        Three days before the circuit court hearing, father moved to stay the JDR court’s judgment

and requested that the circuit court order mother to return the children to Virginia. After the parties

presented their evidence and arguments at the hearing, father filed a written brief in support of his

        2
         The record in this case was sealed. “[T]his appeal requires unsealing certain portions to
resolve the issues raised by the parties. To the extent that certain facts mentioned in this opinion
are found in the sealed portions of the record, we unseal only those portions.” Mintbrook Devs.,
LLC v. Groundscapes, LLC, 76 Va. App. 279, 283 n.1 (2022).
                                                -2-
motion to amend visitation, requesting that the circuit court enjoin the children’s move to Florida

and order that they “immediately” return to Virginia.3

       On December 29, 2022, the circuit court entered a final order, denying father’s motion to

stay and permitting mother to relocate the children to Florida. The circuit court considered the

children’s best interests, the Code § 20-124.3 factors, and the “independent benefit of relocation to

the minor children.” Upon consideration thereof, the circuit court found that relocation was in the

children’s best interests because of the “increased financial stability” through mother’s increased

salary and the “more affordable” cost of living, as well as the educational opportunities available to

the children with an “improved school district” and “specialized school programs.” In addition, the

circuit court found that the evidence demonstrated that there was an “independent benefit” to the

children to relocate and visitation could “be shaped” so there would not be a “significant adverse

impact” to father. The circuit court then ordered that father could visit with the children one

weekend every other month and mother would be responsible for the costs of visitation. The circuit

court also established a holiday and summer visitation schedule. Father appeals.

                                             ANALYSIS

       “On appeal, we presume the judgment of the trial court is correct and the burden is on the

appellant to present to us a sufficient record from which we can determine whether the trial court

has erred[.]” Bay v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 520, 528 (2012); see also Mintbrook Devs.,

LLC v. Groundscapes, LLC, 76 Va. App. 279, 285 n.2 (2022) (same).

       A transcript or properly filed written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript is

indispensable for a review of father’s assignments of error on appeal. See Bay, 60 Va. App. at

528-29. “When the appellant fails to ensure that the record contains transcripts or a written

       3
         There is no transcript of the circuit court hearing, and the record does not include a
properly filed written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript. Rule 5A:8(c).
                                                 -3-
statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error

affected by such omission will not be considered.” Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii).

       On February 27, 2023, father filed a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript, but

the trial judge did not sign it. “[A] written statement becomes a part of the record” if three

conditions are met. Proctor v. Town of Colonial Beach, 15 Va. App. 608, 610 (1993) (en banc)

(citing Rule 5A:8(c)). These conditions include: (1) that the written statement of facts is filed in

the clerk’s office of the circuit court within 60 days after entry of judgment, (2) that “a copy of

the statement is mailed or delivered to opposing counsel along with a notice that the statement

will be presented to the trial judge between fifteen and twenty days after filing,” and (3) that “the

trial judge signs the statement and the signed statement is filed in the office of the clerk.” Id.

“[O]nce the appellant has complied with the first two elements of Rule 5A:8(c), he or she has

established prima facie compliance with the requirements of the rule.” Id.

       Here, although father timely filed his written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript, he

did not provide mother or the guardian ad litem with the requisite notice that the statement of

facts would be presented to the trial judge “no earlier than 15 days nor later than 20 days” after

its filing. Rule 5A:8(c)(1). Because father failed to establish prima facie compliance, he is not

entitled to a remand for the trial judge to consider and sign the proposed written statement of

facts in lieu of a transcript. “Consequently, the statement of facts is not ‘a part of the record.’”

Clary v. Clary, 15 Va. App. 598, 600 (1993) (en banc) (quoting Mayhood v. Mayhood, 4

Va. App. 365, 369 (1987)).

       Father relies on the evidence presented at the circuit court hearing to support his

arguments that the circuit court erred in finding that there had been a material change in

circumstances since the last visitation order, the relocation was in the children’s best interests,

there was an “independent benefit” to the children in relocating, and his relationship with the

                                                 -4-
children would not be adversely impacted. Without a transcript or written statement of facts in

lieu of a transcript, we cannot ascertain whether the evidence supports the circuit court’s findings

regarding the relocation. Moreover, with no record of the arguments father made or the positions

he took at the circuit court hearing, we cannot know whether he presented the specific arguments

to the circuit court which he advances on appeal. See Rule 5A:18 (requiring that an appellate

court consider only arguments that were timely raised in the trial court). We also have no way to

evaluate whether his appellate argument repudiates a position that he may have taken in the

circuit court. Nelson v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 397, 403 (2020) (recognizing that a party

may not take inconsistent positions during the course of litigation). Certainly, we cannot say

whether the circuit court abused its discretion as father claims.

       We conclude that a transcript, or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript, from

the circuit court hearing is indispensable to deciding father’s assignments of error. See Bay, 60

Va. App. at 528-29; Shiembob v. Shiembob, 55 Va. App. 234, 246 (2009); Anderson v.

Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 506, 508-09 (1992); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96,

99-100 (1986). “If . . . the transcript [or statement of facts] is indispensable to the determination

of the case, then the requirements for making the transcript [or statement of facts] a part of the

record on appeal must be strictly adhered to.” Veldhuis as Tr. of Nancy C. Veldhuis Revocable

Living Tr. v. Abboushi, 77 Va. App. 599, 606-07 (2023) (alterations in original) (quoting Bay, 60

Va. App. at 528). Father did not satisfy the requirements to make his written statement of facts

part of the record in this case. Accordingly, father’s arguments are waived. Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii).

                                          CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

                                                -5-