Gary Douglas Lee v Robin Elaine Cowan Lee

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Benton, Bumgardner and Frank
GARY DOUGLAS LEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 1888-99-3 	JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK
OCTOBER 3, 2000
ROBIN ELAINE COWAN LEE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY
Ford C. Quillen, Judge
(Timothy W. McAfee, on brief), for appellant.
Appellant submitting on brief.
(C. M. Callahan, Jr., on brief), for
appellee. 	Appellee submitting on brief.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Gary Douglas Lee (husband) appeals the decision of the trial
court awarding child support and spousal support to Robin Lee
(wife). 	On appeal, husband contends the trial court erred in: 	1)
awarding an increase in the pendente lite child support; 2)
awarding an increase in the pendente lite spousal support; 3)
failing to vacate the pendente lite order; 4) awarding wife
permanent spousal support; and 5) determining the award of
permanent spousal support to wife.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Wife filed a Bill of Complaint on August 1, 1997, seeking a
divorce from husband on the grounds of adultery and desertion. 	By

agreement, a pendente lite order was entered on August 8, 1997,
requiring husband to pay $550 per month in child support, and, in
lieu of spousal support, wife was entitled to withdraw $440 per
month from a joint checking account to pay the mortgage payment on
the marital residence.
On January 5, 1999, a hearing was held pursuant to husband's
notice for equitable distribution. 	Wife also filed a motion to
modify the August 8, 1997 consent order to increase child support
and to provide for additional spousal support. 	The trial court
increased child support to $1,000 per month and awarded wife
temporary spousal support of $1,000 per month. 	Husband
immediately filed a motion to stay the order and asked for
reconsideration. 	A subsequent hearing was conducted on February
10, 1999, and the trial court refused to amend its January 5, 1999
order. 	The court entered an order on February 10, 1999,
incorporating its previous rulings.
On June 23, 1999, the trial court heard ore tenus evidence on
spousal support and on the grounds of divorce and entered the
final decree of divorce, reserving jurisdiction over matters of
equitable distribution.
The first three issues raised by husband involve the January
5, 1999 hearing, which modified the pendente lite consent order of
August 8, 1997. 	The January 5, 1999 hearing also afforded wife
pendente lite relief, which was an interlocutory decree.
- 2 -

This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals of
interlocutory decrees that do not adjudicate the principles of a
cause.1
The Supreme Court of Virginia, in addressing this issue, has
held that an award of pendente lite support is an interlocutory
order that does not adjudicate principles of a cause and is
therefore not appealable. 	See Beatty v. Beatty, 105 Va. 213, 53
S.E. 2 (1906).
Therefore, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to these
issues.
1 Code § 17.1-405 states:
Any aggrieved party may appeal to the
Court of Appeals from:
1. Any final decision of a circuit
court on appeal from a decision of an
administrative agency;
2. Any final decision of the Virginia
Workers' Compensation Commission;
3. Any final judgment, order, or decree
of a circuit court involving:
a. Affirmance or annulment of a
marriage;
b. Divorce;
c. Custody;
d. Spousal or child support;
e. The control or disposition of a
child;
f. Any other domestic relations
matter arising under Title 16.1 or Title 20;
or
g. Adoption under Chapter 11
(§ 63.1-220 et seq.) of Title 63.1;
4. Any interlocutory decree or order
entered 	in any of the cases listed in this
section (i) granting, dissolving, or denying
an injunction or (ii) adjudicating the
principles of a cause.
- 3 -

The remaining two issues have been decided in Lee v. Lee,
Record No. 2941-99-3 (decided today). 	Therefore, we do not write
separately.
Dismissed, in part,
affirmed, in part,
and reversed and
remanded, in part.
- 4 -