Gary Dean Robinson v. Joy Pok Park Robinson

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons
GARY DEAN ROBINSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1693-99-3 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 29, 2000
JOY POK PARK ROBINSON
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge
(Alton B. Prillaman; Jolly, Place, Fralin &
Prillaman, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
(Sam Garrison, on brief), for appellee.
Gary Dean Robinson (husband) appeals the decision of the
circuit court equitably distributing the parties' marital estate.
On appeal, husband contends that the trial court erred by (1)
allowing an equitable distribution hearing on March 4, 1997
without counsel of record being present; (2) entering an order on
July 20, 1999, based upon the March 1997 hearing, despite the fact
that the post-nuptial agreement reached with Joy Pok Park Robinson
(wife) had not been reduced to writing following the March 1997
hearing; and (3) valuing the marital home based upon evidence
produced at the 1997 evidentiary hearing. Upon reviewing the
record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of
the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the party prevailing below. We will not reverse the decision
of the trial court based upon evidence heard ore tenus unless it
is clearly erroneous or unsupported by the evidence. See Hurt v.
Hurt, 16 Va. App. 792, 798, 433 S.E.2d 493, 497 (1993).
Issue I
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing
the equitable distribution hearing to go forward on March 4,
1997, because appellant's counsel of record was not present.
The transcript of the hearing demonstrates that appellant raised
no objection to the hearing at the time and expressed
unequivocally that the agreement read into the record was the
agreement reached with wife. "No ruling of the trial court
. . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the
objection was stated together with the grounds therefor at the
time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the
Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice." Rule 5A:18.
Appellant has not presented evidence warranting an exception to
Rule 5A:18. Therefore, we do not consider this contention.
Issues II and III
Husband contends that the trial court erred in entering its
order dated July 20, 1999, because the terms of the parties'
agreement set out during the March 4, 1997 hearing had not
- 2 -
previously been reduced to writing and submitted. As a result,
husband argues that the order entered on July 20, 1999 violated
the requirement of Rule 1:13. Husband concedes that he was
provided with notice of the hearing and a draft of the proposed
decree. He contends, however, that nine days notice was not
reasonable after the delay of more than two years.
Husband also contends that the trial court erred in
determining the value of the marital home based upon the
evidence presented in the 1997 equitable distribution hearing.
The record contains no indication that the husband
preserved these issues for appeal. Husband's counsel endorsed
the decree as "Seen and objected to for reasons stated in the
record." No listing of objections was attached to the decree.
While the transcript of the June 23, 1999 hearing indicates that
the trial court and husband's counsel discussed options for
preserving any objections, no objections were stated at that
time. Furthermore, the issues that husband raises on appeal
were not preserved in the record at the places designated by
appendix references in husband's brief. See Rule 5A:20(c).
Therefore, we find that husband failed to preserve these issues
for appeal. See Rule 5A:18; Konefal v. Konefal, 18 Va. App.
612, 615, 446 S.E.2d 153, 154-55 (1994); see generally Lee v.
Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 404 S.E.2d 736 (1991) (en banc).
- 3 -
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 4 -