Carinma T. Lawson v. James R. Lawson, III ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges
CARINMA T. LAWSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0362-03-1 PER CURIAM
JUNE 24, 2003
JAMES R. LAWSON, III
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
Jerome James, Judge
(Carinma T. Lawson, pro se), on brief.
No brief for appellee.
Carinma T. Lawson, wife, appeals a decision of the trial
court refusing her request for a spousal support award. Upon
reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this
appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the
decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
The parties were married in 1992. On October 11, 2002,
James R. Lawson, III, husband, filed a bill of complaint for
divorce from wife. In her answer to the bill of complaint, wife
did not request spousal support. The record contains no petition
or motion filed by wife requesting spousal support.
The written statement of facts indicates that, at a hearing
held on January 7, 2003, wife asked the trial court for spousal
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
support. The trial court denied wife's request, stating that
because she had failed to request spousal support in her answer to
the bill of complaint, the matter was not properly before the
court.
"No court can base its decree upon facts not
alleged, nor render its judgment upon a
right, however meritorious, which has not
been pleaded and claimed. . . . Pleadings
are as essential as proof, the one being
unavailing without the other. A decree can
not be entered in the absence of pleadings
upon which to found the same, and if so
entered it is void."
Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19, 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986)
(citation omitted).
The provision of Code § 20-107.1 that
upon decreeing a divorce "the court may make
such further decree as it shall deem
expedient concerning the maintenance and
support of the spouses" grants to the
divorce court the power to award maintenance
and support, but the exercise of such power
remains dependent upon the pleadings having
raised the issue.
Id.
Wife never filed a pleading wherein she sought an award of
spousal support. As a result, the trial court could not enter
such an award in favor of wife. Therefore, the trial court did
not err in its ruling.
Wife raises several other issues in her brief which the
record does not show she presented to the trial court. The
issues are: whether the trial court erred in processing the
case as a first class divorce according to the local rules of
- 2 -
the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk; whether the trial
court considered "the ends of justice as it related to
inequality of representation;" and whether "the manner in which
the trial court obtained the judgment induce[d] . . . [wife] to
consent to a judgment, preventing an opportunity for the fair
submission of all matters of equity."
"The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on
appeal which was not presented to the trial court." Ohree v.
Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998).
See Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration
of these questions on appeal. Moreover, the record does not
reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice
exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 3 -