Karen Marie King v Roy Lee King
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank KAREN MARIE KING v. MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Record No. 1827-99-2 ROY LEE KING FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DINWIDDIE COUNTY Thomas V. Warren, Judge (J. Kevin Clarke, on briefs), for appellant. (Sharon Gregory Jacobs; Morchower, Luxton & Whaley, on brief), for appellee. Karen Marie King (wife) appeals the final decree of divorce entered by the circuit court. Wife contends that the trial court (1) failed to include written findings supporting its denial of wife's request for spousal support, in violation of Code § 20-107.1(F); (2) failed to classify and value the parties' property, in violation of Code § 20-107.3(A); and (3) erred by relying on insufficient evidence to support its finding that the parties resolved their property rights. Wife also appeals the decision of the trial court denying her Motion to Reopen Case or to Suspend Final Decree. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. Roy Lee King (husband) filed his bill of complaint on August 24, 1998. Evidence was submitted by deposition. The record on appeal includes wife's written statement of facts and husband's objections thereto. The record demonstrates that husband's counsel sent to wife's counsel a copy of the depositions and proposed final decree of divorce on April 20, 1999. Husband's counsel sent two additional letters, but received no response. Wife's counsel failed to appear at a meeting scheduled for April 28, 1999, to discuss issues relating to the divorce. By notice filed June 16, 1999, husband's counsel notified wife's counsel of the July 2, 1999 hearing for presentation of the final decree of divorce, along with a copy of the draft order, in compliance with Rule 1:13. Neither wife nor her counsel appeared at the hearing on July 2, 1999. Wife noted no exceptions to the final decree, which was entered the day of the hearing. Wife filed her motion to reopen the case or suspend the final decree on July 26, 1999, more than twenty-one days after entry of the final decree. Wife failed to preserve any objections to the final decree. Rule 5A:18 provides that "[n]o 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 - 2 - Appeals to attain the ends of justice." "The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is to provide the trial court with the opportunity to remedy any error so that an appeal is not necessary." Knight v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 207, 216, 443 S.E.2d 165, 170 (1994); see Newsome v. Newsome, 18 Va. App. 22, 24-25, 441 S.E.2d 346, 347 (1994). The record demonstrates that husband's counsel provided a copy of the draft final decree to wife's counsel in mid-April, more than two months before entry of the decree. Neither wife nor her counsel appeared at the depositions, and wife submitted no evidence or depositions on her own behalf. Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of wife's first three questions presented on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. After filing her answer and cross-bill of complaint, wife and her counsel took no steps to move this matter to resolution. They failed to participate in depositions scheduled by husband and called none of their own. Counsel failed to appear at a scheduled meeting to discuss issues relating to the divorce. He did not respond to multiple contacts from opposing counsel. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of wife's motion to reopen or suspend the decree. - 3 - Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. Affirmed. - 4 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
