Gopalakrishnan Subramanian v. Ranjeetha Ravichandran

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Alston and McCullough
UNPUBLISHED
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
GOPALAKRISHNAN SUBRAMANIAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2617-11-4 CHIEF JUDGE WALTER S. FELTON, JR.
OCTOBER 16, 2012
RANJEETHA RAVICHANDRAN
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Jonathan C. Thacher, Judge
Robert F. Zaniel (Divorce Resource, PLLC, on brief), for appellant.
(Ranjeetha Ravichandran, pro se, on brief). Appellee submitting on
brief.
Gopalakrishnan Subramanian (“husband”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a
divorce from Ranjeetha Ravichandran (“wife”). Husband argues that the trial court erred in finding
he had “unclean hands” because he refused to assist wife in obtaining a United States H-4
Dependent Visa,1 resulting in her being unable to appear in person to challenge the divorce. He also
asserts the trial court erred by precluding him from obtaining a divorce because of his “unclean
hands,” finding that it was “inequitable” to enter a divorce decree, and relying on facts not in
evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2007, the parties were married in India pursuant to Hindu tradition. The
parties then moved to the United States. In August 2008, wife returned to India, with the parties’
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1
A H-4 Dependent Visa is the nonimmigrant classification for dependent spouses of a
temporary (nonimmigrant) worker.
minor child, to complete an engineering exam. On March 22, 2010, husband filed a motion for
divorce seeking a divorce on the grounds of desertion and/or mental cruelty, or, in the
alternative, on the grounds of one year separation pursuant to Code § 20-91(9).
On May 13, 2010, wife filed a response to husband’s motion for divorce. In her
response, wife denied that she deserted husband, and asserted that husband restricted her from
reentering the United States by refusing to renew her H-4 Dependent Visa. Wife also asked the
trial court to determine child custody, child support, spousal support, and an equitable
distribution of the marital estate.
Some six months later, on November 4, 2010, the trial court conducted a hearing ore
tenus on husband’s motion. Only husband and his counsel were present at that hearing. The trial
court found that husband’s actions in refusing to renew wife’s H-4 Dependent Visa barred her
from reentering the United States to participate in the divorce proceedings. The trial court ruled
that because of husband’s “unclean hands,” barring wife from personally appearing to protect her
interests, he was not entitled to a divorce. The trial court also found that entry of husband’s draft
final decree would be inequitable as it would foreclose wife from seeking child support, spousal
support, and equitable distribution of the marital estate. The trial court stated its findings in a
letter opinion and in its order denying the divorce, both dated December 6, 2010. The order
incorporated the trial court’s letter opinion by reference.
Husband appealed the trial court’s December 6, 2010 order denying the divorce to this
Court. By order dated July 5, 2011, this Court found that the December 6, 2010 order was not
final for purposes of appeal and dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
Almost one year later, on December 2, 2011, the trial court again entered an order
denying husband’s request for a divorce for the reasons previously stated in its letter opinion and
-2-
December 6, 2010 order. The trial court concluded in its final order that “there are no further
matters that need to be addressed in this cause.”
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, husband argues that the trial court erred by refusing to enter his draft order
granting him a divorce from wife. After review of the record presented by husband on appeal,
we conclude that husband failed to provide this Court with an adequate record from which we
can determine whether the trial court erred in denying husband’s request for a divorce. “If the
parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was their duty to present that error to us with legal
authority to support their contention.” Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 851, 667 S.E.2d
857, 866 (2008). “[I]t is not the function of this Court to ‘search the record for error in order to
interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.’” West v. West, 59
Va. App. 225, 235, 717 S.E.2d 831, 835 (2011) (quoting Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53,
56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992)).
Rule 5A:25(c)(3) provides that the appendix “shall include: . . . any testimony and other
incidents of the case germane to the assignments of error.” The appendix does not contain records
from the trial court necessary to support husband’s assertions of where he preserved his assignments
of error. The final order states that husband excepts to the order “on the grounds set forth on the
attached.” Those grounds are not contained in the appendix.
“The appendix is a tool vital to the function of the appellate process
in Virginia. . . . By requiring the inclusion of all parts of the record
germane to the issues, the Rules promote the cause of plenary
justice.” Thrasher v. Burlage, 219 Va. 1007, 1009-10, 254 S.E.2d
64, 66 (1979) (per curiam). Thus the filing of an appendix that
complies with the Rules, is “essential to an informed collegiate
decision.” Id.Patterson v. City of Richmond, 39 Va. App. 706, 717, 576 S.E.2d 759, 764-65 (2003).
-3-
Moreover, husband also failed to comply with Rule 5A:8(c)(2). His written statement of
facts and incidents of trial, included in the appendix he provided on appeal, was not signed by
the trial court as required by the Rule. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court
denying husband’s motion for a divorce from wife.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Affirmed.
-4-