Charlie Bellfleur Yamba Taka v. Alfred Scott McLaren, Jr. ( 2012 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner
CHARLIE BELLFLEUR YAMBA TAKA
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1743-11-4 PER CURIAM
MAY 15, 2012
ALFRED SCOTT McLAREN, JR.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY
Charles S. Sharp, Judge
(Abu Bakarr Kalokoh, on brief), for appellant.
(Peter M. Fitzner; Matthews, Snider & Fitzner, on brief), for
appellee.
Charlie Bellfleur Yamba Taka (wife) appeals from the final order of her divorce from Alfred
Scott McLaren, Jr. (husband). Wife argues the trial court abused its discretion in granting primary
residential custody of the parties’ minor child to husband without considering all the factors
required by Code § 20-124.3. Wife also contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to
consider all the factors required by Code § 20-107.1 in determining spousal support. 1
Wife did not file a transcript or written statement of facts pertaining to the evidence
presented in the trial court. See Rule 5A:8 (stating that “[t]he transcript of any proceeding is a part
of the record when it is filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court within 60 days after entry of
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1
Wife acknowledges that she did not raise either issue in the trial court, but asks this
Court to invoke the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 and consider the assignments of
error on appeal. Because we summarily affirm the trial court’s decision without consideration of
the assignments of error, we need not consider whether the ends of justice exception is applicable
in this instance.
the final judgment”). The appellate record contains only an excerpt of the transcript reflecting the
trial court’s ruling.
We conclude that a transcript or written statement of facts of the evidence is indispensable to
a determination of the assignments of error raised on appeal. See Anderson v. Commonwealth, 13
Va. App. 506, 508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77 (1992); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96,
99-100, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986). We further conclude that this defect is significant. See Jay
v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008) (“[T]he Court of Appeals
should . . . consider whether any failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of [the Rules of
Court] is insignificant.”). Therefore, we summarily affirm the judgment of the trial court.2 See
Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
2
We deny husband’s request for an award of attorney’s fees incurred in the process of
this appeal.
-2-