Narinder Singh v. Babita Rani

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

UNPUBLISHED

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Alston and Senior Judge Willis

NARINDER SINGH
MEMORANDUM OPINION"
v. Record No. 1395-12-4 PER CURIAM
DECEMBER 26, 2012
BABITA RANI

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
R. Terrence Ney, Judge

(Robert L.. Tomlinson, IT, on brief), for appellant. Appellant
submitting on brief.

No bref for appellee.

Narinder Singh appeals a child support modification order. Singh argues that the tial court
erred by not applying the presumptive child support guidelines and making no findings as to why
the presumptive amount would be unjust or inappropniate as is required by statute. Upon reviewing
the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without ment. Accordingly, we
affirm the decision of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

On Apnil 8, 2004, the tial court entered a final decree of divorce for Singh and Babita
Rani. The final decree stated that Singh would pay Rani $600 per month for child support for
their three minor children.

In 2012, Singh filed a motion to reduce child support because one of the parties’ three
children reached the age of majority. Rani subsequently filed a motion to increase child support

because of a reduction in her income.

” Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
On July 9, 2012, the parties appeared before the trial court and presented evidence of
their income. Pursuant to Code § 20-108.2, the presumptive amount of child support was $277
per month. After hearing evidence and argument from the parties, the trial court ruled that the
child support would remain at $600 per month. Pursuant to the written statement of facts, the
trial court “held that the child support as it stands is woefully low particularly given the decrease
in wife’s earnings because of a reduction in her day care business.”1
The trial court entered the final order on July 9, 2012. Singh noted the following
objection – “Seen and objected to amount of child support not taking into consideration
emancipated child.” This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Singh argues that “the trial court abused its discretion in deviating from the
presumptive amount of the child support guidelines by failing to consider the statutory factors
and without making written findings as required by statute.” However, Singh did not object on
this ground at the trial court level.
“No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an
objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause
shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” Rule 5A:18.
We “will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.”
Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). “The purpose of
Rule 5A:18 is to allow the trial court to correct in the trial court any error that is called to its
attention.” Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 514, 404 S.E.2d 736, 737 (1991) (en banc).
Accordingly, we will not consider Singh’s argument.
1 Appellant submitted a written statement of facts, instead of a transcript, pursuant to
Rule 5A:8.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the tial court’s ruling is affirmed.

Affirmed.