Tamena Wilson v. Antoine Wilson ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                     COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:   Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman
    TAMENA WILSON
    MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    v.   Record No. 2724-01-1                      PER CURIAM
    APRIL 16, 2002
    ANTOINE WILSON
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
    Everett A. Martin, Jr., Judge
    (Curtis T. Brown, on brief), for appellant.
    (Starr I. Yoder; Tidewater Legal Clinic, on
    brief), for appellee.
    Tamena Wilson (wife) appeals the decision of the circuit
    court awarding Antoine Wilson (husband) a final decree of divorce.
    On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred in (1) denying her
    exceptions to the commissioner in chancery's report, (2) refusing
    to continue the exceptions hearing for lack of proper notice, and
    (3) refusing to entertain her motion for custody, child support,
    and spousal support.   Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the
    parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
    Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.
    See Rule 5A:27. 1
    * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    1
    Appellant's motion to dismiss and disregard appellee's
    appendix is denied.
    On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable
    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).
    Procedural Background
    Husband filed a bill of complaint on April 28, 2000 seeking a
    no-fault divorce from wife.    Wife filed her answer and cross-bill
    on May 24, 2000.    On December 15, 2000, husband's counsel gave
    notice to wife's counsel that she would seek entry of a decree of
    reference on January 5, 2001.    On that date, the circuit court
    referred this case to a commissioner in chancery.    Wife's counsel
    did not appear for the entry of the decree of reference and did
    not communicate with husband's counsel.
    On April 25, 2001, the trial court issued a scheduling
    conference notice requiring counsel for both parties to either
    submit a scheduling order before June 1, 2001 or appear in court
    at 2:30 p.m. on that date for the entry of such an order.      The
    parties did not submit a scheduling order prior to the specified
    date, and only husband's counsel appeared on June 1.    The court
    entered an order setting the commissioner's hearing for July 30,
    2001.    On June 6, 2001, husband's counsel notified wife's counsel
    of the hearing.    Wife did not file any motions to continue or to
    disqualify the commissioner.    Neither wife nor her counsel
    appeared at the July 30, 2001 hearing.    The commissioner filed his
    report on August 21, 2001.    On August 27, 2001, wife filed
    - 2 -
    exceptions to the commissioner's report.    On September 20, 2001,
    husband's counsel scheduled a hearing for September 26, 2001 on
    wife's exceptions and to have the final decree entered.   Prior to
    scheduling the hearing, husband's counsel did not confirm wife's
    counsel's available dates due to wife's counsel's refusal to
    communicate with husband's counsel.   Wife's counsel then advised
    the court that the hearing was scheduled without his input and
    that he could not attend the September 26, 2001 hearing, but he
    did not file a motion for a continuance.    The trial court entered
    the final decree on September 26, 2001, without wife or her
    counsel being present.
    Analysis
    I.
    "On appeal, a decree which approves a commissioner's report
    will be affirmed unless plainly wrong."     Dodge v. Dodge, 2 Va.
    App. 238, 242, 
    343 S.E.2d 363
    , 365 (1986) (citation omitted).
    Wife argues only that the trial court erred in denying her
    exceptions by not holding an exceptions hearing.     However, the
    trial court scheduled the hearing after receiving wife's
    exceptions and wife did not appear.     The trial court's approval
    of the commissioner's report was not plainly wrong.
    II.
    Citing Code § 8.01-615, wife argues the trial court did not
    provide her with reasonable notice of the exceptions hearing.
    In pertinent part, that section provides:
    - 3 -
    A cause may be heard by the court upon a
    commissioner's report. Subject to the Rules
    of Court regarding dispensing with notice of
    taking proofs and other proceedings,
    reasonable notice of such hearing shall be
    given to counsel of record and to parties
    not represented by counsel.
    Code § 8.01-615.   Wife was provided five days' notice of the
    exceptions hearing.   Although wife's counsel notified the court
    of his conflict, he did not file a motion for a continuance.
    Furthermore, the trial court noted that wife's counsel
    "throughout the course of this suit had not cooperated with
    [husband's] counsel by giving available dates for hearings and
    had ignored notices from [husband's] counsel and the Court."
    Under the facts of this case, the five days' notice was
    reasonable.
    III.
    In support of her third question presented, wife's sole
    argument is that the trial court erred by denying her request
    for spousal support; therefore, we do not address the contention
    in her question presented that the trial court erred by not
    hearing her motions for custody and child support.   "Statements
    unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record
    do not merit appellate consideration."    Novak v. Commonwealth,
    
    20 Va. App. 373
    , 389, 
    457 S.E.2d 402
    , 410 (1995) (citation
    omitted).
    Although the final decree incorrectly states wife did not
    request spousal support, the commissioner's report rejected her
    - 4 -
    request.   As explained above, the trial court's approval of the
    commissioner's report was not plainly wrong.
    Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial
    court.   See Rule 5A:27.
    Affirmed.
    - 5 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2724011

Filed Date: 4/16/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021