From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rashed v. Nahed Moustfa El-Kholy

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Feb 2, 1993
Record No. 1289-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 1289-92-4

February 2, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

(Lotfy S. Rashed, pro se, on brief).

(Nahed Moustfa El-Kholy, pro se, on brief).

Present: Judges Barrow, Moon and Bray


MEMORANDUM OPINION

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


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

Lotfy Sayed Rashed appeals from a final decree which awarded Nahed Moustfa El-Kholy a divorce from Rashed. Rashed sets forth the following "Questions Presented":

I. Did the trial court have jurisdiction over the parties in light of Rashed's assertions that they "recohabited" and reconciled between July 1989 and June 1990?

II. Did the trial court err in issuing a final decree, knowing of Rashed's absence from court due to kidney stones?

III. Did the trial court give Rashed notice of the equitable distribution order of June 16, 1992?

IV. Did the trial court give Rashed notice of the Commissioner's hearing, or was Rashed allowed to attend any hearing after September 16, 1992?

I.

Rashed's primary assertion is that the trial judge erred in denying Rashed's claim that Rashed and El-Kholy had reconciled and cohabited in Maryland from July 1989, to June 1990. Rashed was given an opportunity to present this claim at a hearing on November 1, 1990, during which he was represented by counsel. The trial judge considered the evidence and rejected Rashed's position.

On appeal, the evidence presented in the circuit court and all reasonable inferences therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Pommerenke v. Pommerenke, 7 Va. App. 241, 244, 372 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1988). Where the court hears evidence ore tenus, its findings are given great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support them. Id. The findings of the judge as to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is on the same footing as a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Yates v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 140, 143, 355 S.E.2d 14, 16 (1987).

The trial judge considered Rashed's allegations that he and his wife lived together in Maryland and therefore had not met the statutory requirement of Code § 20-91(9)(a) that "the husband and wife have lived separate and apart without any cohabitation and without interruption for one year." The judge believed evidence to the contrary presented by El-Kholy. As this decision is not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it, we affirm the decision of the trial judge on this issue.

II.-IV.

As to the remaining three claims, Rashed asserts no argument, cites no authority, and makes no reference to the record. "Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record do not merit appellate consideration. We will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant's contention and correct deficiencies in a brief."Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992).

For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's decision.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Rashed v. Nahed Moustfa El-Kholy

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Feb 2, 1993
Record No. 1289-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 1993)
Case details for

Rashed v. Nahed Moustfa El-Kholy

Case Details

Full title:LOTFY S. RASHED v. NAHED MOUSTFA EL-KHOLY

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia

Date published: Feb 2, 1993

Citations

Record No. 1289-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 1993)