Danielle J. Cummins v. Valman D. Cummins ( 1999 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons
DANIELLE J. CUMMINS
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2736-98-2 PER CURIAM
MAY 4, 1999
VALMAN D. CUMMINS
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PETERSBURG
Oliver A. Pollard, Jr., Judge
(Danielle J. Cummins, pro se, on brief).
No brief for appellee.
Danielle J. Cummins (wife) appeals the decision of the
circuit court determining the amount of child support arrearage
owed to her by Valman D. Cummins (husband). On appeal, wife
contends that the trial erred by (1) reducing husband’s child
support arrearage by amounts received by wife as rental income;
(2) holding wife solely accountable for debts incurred during the
marriage; (3) crediting as child support amounts taxed as income
to wife; and (4) not finding husband liable for 54% of the cost of
day care. 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.
*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.
The record on appeal does not contain a hearing transcript or
timely filed written statement of facts. See Rule 5A:8. However,
“[i]f the record on appeal is sufficient in the absence of the
transcript to determine the merits of the appellant's allegations,
we are free to proceed to hear the case.” Turner v. Commonwealth,
2 Va. App. 96, 99, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986). The order of the
trial judge contains sufficient detail concerning the evidence
produced at the March 11, 1998 hearing for this Court to proceed
to the merits of this appeal.
The sole issue husband appealed from the juvenile and
domestic relations district court was the amount of his
outstanding child support arrearage. Wife contends that the trial
court improperly reduced the amount of the child support arrearage
by crediting husband with amounts she received as rent from
property in North Carolina. According to the trial court’s order,
during the period of October 1992 through January 1995, wife
collected $375 in monthly rent on this property, while husband
paid the mortgage. Husband’s monthly child support payment during
this time was $400. The trial court found that the parties agreed
that husband would receive credit against the child support
arrearage in the amount of the rentals collected by wife on the
home in North Carolina or that husband acquiesced to this
arrangement as a means to pay his court-ordered support. Because
the record indicates that the parties agreed to this crediting, we
find no error in the decision of the trial court to reduce the
- 2 -
amount of husband’s arrearage by the amount of rental income
received by wife during the period from October 1992 through
January 1995.
Wife listed three additional questions for which she failed
to provide any argument. "Statements unsupported by argument,
authority, or citations to the record do not merit appellate
consideration." Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415
S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Therefore, we do not address these
issues.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 3 -