Sevim McShane v. Raymond Gerard McShane

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Humphreys, Powell and Senior Judge Clements
SEVIM McSHANE
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0066-09-4 	PER CURIAM
JUNE 23, 2009
RAYMOND GERARD McSHANE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
William D. Hamblen, Judge
(David L. Duff; Adam T. Kronfeld; The Duff Law Firm, on briefs),
for appellant.
(Harris W. Leiner; Lucy P. Homiller; Batzli, Wood & Stiles, P.C., on
brief), for appellee.
Sevim McShane (wife) appeals the spousal support ruling in the final decree. Wife argues
that the trial court erred in not entering written findings and conclusions identifying the factors
which supported the granting of spousal support, and the nature, amount, and duration of the award.
Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we find that wife did not preserve her
arguments for appeal. Rule 5A:18. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling is summarily affirmed. Rule
5A:27.
On October 29, 2008, the parties appeared before the circuit court for a final hearing on the
outstanding issues of their divorce. The trial court ruled from the bench that wife should receive
nine years of spousal support, payable at $2,100 per month for the first three years and $1,500 per
month for the next six years. The trial court explained its rulings and how it arrived at the award
based on the statutory factors in Code § 20-107.1(E). On December 8, 2008, a final decree was
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
entered and stated that the spousal support award was based “[u]pon consideration of the factors of
Virginia 20-107.1(E).” Wife did not sign the final decree, nor did she object that the final decree
failed to include the judge’s written findings pursuant to Code § 20-107.1(F). Wife subsequently
filed a motion for reconsideration and rehearing, but failed to note her objection that the final decree
did not include the trial court’s written findings of the statutory factors to support the spousal
support award.
Therefore, wife did not preserve her argument that the trial court erred in not providing
written findings of the statutory factors that supported its spousal support award. See Rule
5A:18. Rule 5A:18 states that “No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for
reversal unless the objection was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the
ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of
justice.” 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).
There was no miscarriage of justice in this case, and the ends of justice exception does not apply.
Therefore, we will not consider wife’s question presented, and the trial court’s decision is
summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.