Opinion
Record No. 2573-92-3
September 14, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY KENNETH I. DEVORE, JUDGE.
(Steven R. Want, on briefs), for appellant.
(Max Jenkins, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Linda A. G. Duncan Bailey ("wife") appeals the trial court's order refusing to hold Charles Duncan, Sr. ("husband") in contempt of court and ordering their seventeen-year-old son, Charles Douglas Duncan, Jr., to pay his own dental bill. Wife raises three issues on appeal: 1) whether the circuit court erred in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor son prior to ordering him to pay the dental bill; 2) whether the circuit court erred in entering judgment against the minor child; and 3) whether the circuit court erred in failing to hold father in contempt of its August 9, 1991 order.
Husband filed a Motion to Dismiss with this Court, asserting that wife did not preserve these issues for review in accordance with Rule 5A:18, and therefore this Court is foreclosed from reviewing them on their merits. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we agree with husband's argument and conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
Husband's initial filing was the Motion to Dismiss, which raised certain additional procedural challenges to this appeal. Husband then filed an appellee's brief out of time. Wife filed a reply brief and an Objection to Appellee's Brief and Motion for Summary Judgment. Because we hold that Rule 5A:18 prevents our hearing this appeal, we will not address the other issues raised in these motions.
Rule 5A:18 provides, in pertinent part, that "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." An issue that was not in dispute below will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Green v. Warwick Plumbing and Heating Corp., 5 Va. App. 409, 412-13, 364 S.E.2d 4, 6 (1988).
The record contains a transcript of the ore tenus hearing as well as several letters to the court. The only objection to the trial court's ruling contained in the record before us is counsel's endorsement of the final decree under the phrase "Seen and Objected to." We have held that such an endorsement, without more, fails to meet the requirements of Rule 5A:18.Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 404 S.E.2d 736 (1991) (en banc). Moreover, we find no reason to hear the questions presented for good cause or to attain the ends of justice. See Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.
Affirmed.