From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ahmad v. Ahmad

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jun 1, 1993
Record No. 2324-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 1, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 2324-92-4

June 1, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY RICHARD J. JAMBORSKY, JUDGE.

(Joseph A. Condo; Beth A. Bittel; Joseph A. Condo Associates, P.C., on briefs), for appellant.

(Drake T. Brodin, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.


Fozia Ahmad ("wife") appeals orders regarding spousal and child support resulting from her divorce from Aziz Ahmad ("husband"). Wife raises the following arguments on appeal:

I. The trial court erred in basing its determination of permanent periodic and lump sum spousal support on evidence not in the record;

II. The trial court failed to give due consideration to the factors of Code § 20-107.1 in determining spousal support;

III. The trial court abused its discretion in ruling on wife's claim for spousal support; and

IV. The trial court erred in computing the child support award.

Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.

Husband contends that the first three issues are not subject to review because wife's trial counsel failed to preserve them for appeal. Rule 5A:18 provides, in pertinent part, 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 Appeals to attain the ends of justice." The purpose of the rule is to allow the trial judge to correct any error called to the judge's attention, to allow the opposing party to offer alternatives to an objectionable ruling, and, thus, to avoid costly appeals and retrials.Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 514, 404 S.E.2d 736, 737 (1990) (en banc). Code § 8.01-384 provides, in part, that "[a]rguments made at trial via written pleading, memorandum, recital of objections in a final order, oral argument reduced to transcript, or agreed written statements of facts shall, unless expressly withdrawn or waived, be deemed preserved therein for assertion on appeal."

Wife's trial counsel made no objection to the trial judge's rulings on spousal support. She did not object to the trial judge's alleged reliance on evidence not in the record. Wife contends that this failure to object resulted from the failure of husband's counsel to move the exhibits into evidence. However, these documents were tendered to the trial judge in open court. Moreover, upon hearing the trial judge refer in his opinion from the bench to the "peculiar facts" of the case, which wife claims relate to these exhibits, wife's counsel had an opportunity to raise the issue with the trial judge. She could also have objected in a motion for reconsideration. Wife did not address the adequacy of the trial judge's consideration of the factors of Code § 20-107.1. She also did not allege an abuse of discretion in the trial judge's spousal support ruling. We have examined the issues raised and find that neither good cause nor "the ends of justice" require their consideration. See Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987).

Following the denial of her motion for reconsideration regarding child support, wife's trial counsel prepared the final decree and endorsed it with the words, "[w]e ask for this." By specifically asking the trial judge to sign this order, wife's counsel waived any objections on this issue. Code § 8.01-384(A).

For the reasons stated, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Ahmad v. Ahmad

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jun 1, 1993
Record No. 2324-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 1, 1993)
Case details for

Ahmad v. Ahmad

Case Details

Full title:FOZIA AHMAD v. AZIZ AHMAD

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia

Date published: Jun 1, 1993

Citations

Record No. 2324-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 1, 1993)