John Jay Flanner v. Betty Harris Flanner

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
JOHN JAY FLANNER
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0944-96-3 PER CURIAM
DECEMBER 10, 1996
BETTY HARRIS FLANNER
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TAZEWELL COUNTY
Donald R. Mullins, Judge
(Gary G. Gilliam; McAfee & Associates, P.C.,
on brief), for appellant.
(Robert M. Galumbeck; Dudley, Galumbeck &
Simmons, on brief), for appellee.
John Jay Flanner (husband) appeals the decision of the
circuit court awarding medical benefits and spousal support to
Betty Harris Flanner (wife). Husband contends that the trial
court erred in (1) awarding wife medical benefits where wife
failed to prove constructive desertion; and (2) awarding wife
spousal support without considering the statutory factors. 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. Rule 5A:27.
"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 . . . ." Rule
5A:18. Thus, the Court of Appeals will not consider an argument
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
on appeal which was not presented to the trial court. Jacques v.
Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 591, 593, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991).
The record contains no evidence that husband raised before
the trial court the challenges to the payment of medical benefits
and spousal support which he now raises on appeal. The order
from which this appeal is taken was endorsed by husband's counsel
"Seen and Objected to." No transcript was filed and the written
statement of facts does not indicate that husband raised the
arguments which form the basis for his appeal. "We cannot assume
that appellant's objection and reasons were proffered but not
made a part of the record." Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 516,
404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991) (en banc).
Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of these
questions on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any
reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to
Rule 5A:18. Therefore, the decision of the circuit court is
summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
2