Samuel Bunyan Davis, Jr. v. Louise Barclay Davis ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
SAMUEL BUNYAN DAVIS, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1125-97-1 PER CURIAM
NOVEMBER 18, 1997
LOUISE BARCLAY DAVIS
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS
James C. Godwin, Judge Designate
(Samuel B. Davis, Jr., pro se, on brief),
for appellant.
(Kenneth B. Murov; Kevin W. Grierson;
Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, on brief),
for appellee.
Samuel Bunyan Davis, Jr. (husband) appeals the equitable
distribution decision of the circuit court. Husband challenges
the sufficiency of the service, alleges Louise Barclay Davis
(wife) was subject to undue influence, and challenges the
equitable distribution award. 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.
Husband contends that he did not receive proper service of
the initial filings and that the pendente lite order was entered
without proper service. Code § 20-99 provides that process and
notice in divorce cases "shall be served in this Commonwealth by
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
any of the methods prescribed in § 8.01-296 by any person
authorized to serve process under § 8.01-293." Code § 8.01-296
provides for personal service or substituted service through
posting at the usual place of abode. The orders entered in the
proceedings below noted that husband was not present but was duly
served. The commissioner's report also noted that husband was
properly served.
The record supports the findings of the court and the
commissioner that husband was properly served. The record
reflects that husband was served with the bill of complaint on
September 18, 1995, by posted service. Husband was served by
posting at his usual place of abode, the marital home, with
notice of the rescheduled pendente lite hearing. He was served
with a supplemental notice of hearing for entry of the pendente
lite order, and a copy of the bill of complaint, by posting at
his residence on May 7, 1996, and was videotaped collecting the
documents served. He was similarly personally served prior to
the commissioner's hearing.
Moreover, husband made a general appearance in this matter
by filing objections to the commissioner's report and a motion
for summary judgment. While the motion for summary judgment
alleges that the "first order entered in this cause . . . was
without jurisdiction and before [husband] was properly before the
court," husband's filing of objections to the commissioner's
report that did not attack the court's jurisdiction waived his
2
objections to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. See
Nixon v. Rowland, 192 Va. 47, 50, 63 S.E.2d 757, 759 (1951).
Therefore, we find husband's contention that service was
insufficient and that he thereby was denied due process of law to
be without merit.
Husband also alleges, without citation to the record, that
wife was the victim of a conspiracy between the trial judge and
wife's counsel, and that the distribution of marital assets was
not equitable. Husband elected not to present evidence at the
hearings below. Because no evidence supports his allegations,
husband has not demonstrated that the trial court committed
reversible error.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed. In addition, we grant appellee's motion for attorney
fees and remand this matter to the trial judge for an assessment
of a reasonable fee.
Affirmed.
3