Opinion
Record No. 1620-92-4
November 16, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY JAMES W. HALEY, JR., JUDGE.
William G. Dade, for appellant.
John C. Cowan (Franklin, Williams Cowan, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Elder and Fitzpatrick.
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
In this domestic appeal, Aubrey Wingfield Clemons (husband) asserts that the trial judge failed to classify properly the parties' marital property and that a $65,000 monetary award to Mildred Clemons (wife) was based upon these erroneous classifications. Because objections to the trial judge's rulings were not properly preserved, Rule 5A:18 bars consideration of this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
The parties separated on November 1, 1989. Husband filed for divorce on January 24, 1991. The circuit court file reflects a February 12, 1992 notice of a final divorce and equitable distribution hearing set for April 20, 1992, at which time depositions were to be submitted and ore tenus argument was to be made. No transcript or statement of facts in the record establishes what occurred at that hearing. In a June 15, 1992 opinion letter, the trial judge ruled on all matters which are the basis for this appeal. On July 2, 1992, counsel for wife gave proper notice that he would present the final divorce decree to the trial court on July 14, 1992. On that date, counsel for husband did not appear and the trial judge entered the decree No objections were stated on the decree at that time. The record shows that on July 16, 1992, counsel for husband endorsed the order and filed separately his objections to the trial judge's rulings.
This case is controlled by our ruling in Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 404 S.E.2d 736 (1991) (en banc). "The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is to allow the trial [judge] to correct in the trial court any error that is called to [his] attention." Id. at 514, 404 S.E.2d at 737. We have previously noted "that it is unfair to reverse the trial court for an error which was not called to its attention in time for it to take corrective action."Id. (citation omitted). The record in this case contains no evidence that any of husband's arguments or objections were ever presented to the trial judge. Under such circumstances, we cannot consider husband's appeal because it would be "unfair to the opposing party, who may have been able to offer an alternative to the objectionable ruling, but did not do so, believing there was no problem." Id. at 514, 404 S.E.2d 737 (citing Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44, 400 S.E.2d 164, 167 (1991)).
Code § 8.01-384 provides husband no relief because, as previously stated, there is no evidence that any of these objections were ever presented to the trial court.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.