g that "[u]npublished opinions of this Court . . . hav[e] no precedential value, [they] are nevertheless persuasive authority." Otey v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 346, 351 n.3, 735 S.E.2d 255, 258 n.3 (2012); see, e.g., Ross v. Ross, No. 0748-17-4, 2017 Va. App. LEXIS 331 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2017), Dunfee v. Dunfee, No. 0870-10-4, 2010 Va. App. LEXIS 500 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2010), Mosteller v. Brooks, No. 2889-07-4, 2008 Va. App. LEXIS 565 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2008), Ford v. Ford, No. 0458-08-1, 2008 Va. App. LEXIS 505 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2008), Noce v. Noce, No. 2219-05-1, 2006 Va. App. LEXIS 149 (Va. Ct. App. April 11, 2006), Blevins v. Blevins, No. 2297-01-3, 2002 Va. App. LEXIS 281 (Va. Ct. App. May 7, 2002), Banks v. Banks, No. 0414-00-4, 2001 Va. App. LEXIS 452 (Va. Ct. App. July 31, 2001), Stacey v. Stacey, No. 0634-99-1, 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 519 (Va. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 1999), Alberger v. Alberger, No. 2527-98-4, 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 351 (Va. Ct. App. June 15, 1999), and Cline v. Cline, No. 0504-99-3, 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 688 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 1999). The trial court initially ordered appellant to pay both the mortgage and HOA fees pursuant to the pendente lite order and granted her exclusive use and possession of the marital residence.