Nancy A. Megill v. Allan D. Megill ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Coleman, Elder and Fitzpatrick
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
NANCY A. MEGILL
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1906-96-2 PER CURIAM
APRIL 29, 1997
ALLAN D. MEGILL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
David F. Berry, Judge
Nancy Anne Megill, pro se.
(Ronald R. Tweel; Michie, Hamlett, Lowry,
Rasmussen & Tweel, P.C., on brief), for
appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.
I.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred by not
granting her a final decree of divorce on the ground of physical
cruelty. In support of her contention, she argues that
because she suffered "acute domestic violence" this Court should
"take a firm stand" against domestic violence by reversing the
trial court (1) for permitting "the husband's attorney [to]
change the grounds for divorce from their original filing" and
(2) for awarding the divorce on the grounds of having lived
separate and apart for more than one year. The appellant asserts
that she should be granted a divorce on the ground of physical
cruelty in order to restore her personal dignity.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
A trial court is authorized by Rule 1:8 and Code § 8.01-377
to permit a party to amend pleadings to allege a different or
dual grounds of divorce from that initially pleaded. When the
pleadings allege and the evidence proves dual or multiple grounds
for divorce, the trial court does not err by granting a divorce
on either ground that has been pleaded and proven. Robertson v.
Robertson, 215 Va. 425, 426, 211 S.E.2d 41, 43 (1975). Thus,
although the pleadings and proof may have supported granting the
wife a divorce on the ground of physical cruelty pursuant to Code
§ 20-91(6), the trial court did not err by granting a divorce on
the ground of having lived separate and apart for more than one
year pursuant to Code § 20-91(9). Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court's final decree of divorce granting the parties a
divorce on the grounds of having lived separate and apart for
more than one year.
II.
The appellant variously assigns as error the trial court's
failure to take into account the inequality of the parties' legal
representation, that the court "interchanged equitable
distribution for spousal support," and by limiting the hearings
to the "partial agreement" the court denied the wife her right to
trial on all issues. The appellant asks this Court to grant her
the following relief as a result of the alleged error: require
the husband to pay three years of COBRA premiums, require him to
designate her a fifty percent beneficiary on a life insurance
- 2 -
policy in order to protect spousal support, set deadlines for the
husband to comply with the trial court's distribution order,
require husband to pay fifty percent of the 1994 federal income
tax obligation, revise the date of the QUADRO division, require
husband to pay $2,000 for damaging the marital home, hold the
husband in contempt for nonpayment of spousal support, require
the husband to pay the real estate appraiser, require the husband
to pay various expenses associated with the transfer and
maintenance of the house, require the husband to transfer title
or register a car for her use, and other miscellaneous relief.
An appellant has the responsibility to provide the appellate
court with an adequate record of the trial proceedings and a
sufficient brief of legal authority to enable the court to
reasonably understand the nature of the appeal and the underlying
facts upon which the appeal is based. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14
Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). An appellate court
does not have the responsibility of scouring the record to
understand the facts and to develop the legal research and
argument necessary to support a party's legal position. Id. The
appellant has failed to provide us with an adequate appendix or
references to the record to enable us to address the factual
issues that have been raised, has failed to provide us with
necessary references to legal authority in support of her claims
and requests for relief, has raised various issues for the first
time on appeal in violation of Rule 5A:18, and has for the first
- 3 -
time requested specific relief in the appellate court that was
not requested in the trial court. See Rogers v. Rogers, 170 Va.
417, 421, 196 S.E. 586, 588 (1938). For the foregoing reasons,
appellant's remaining assignments of error and requests for
relief are insufficient and are denied.
Affirmed.
- 4 -