Sandra E. Rogers v. Daniel J. Rogers

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Chief Judge Felton, Judges Humphreys and Millette
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
SANDRA E. ROGERS
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 1683-07-1 	JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS
MAY 27, 2008
DANIEL J. ROGERS
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
V. Thomas Forehand, Jr., Judge
Melvin J. Radin (Radin & Radin, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Sandra Rogers (“wife”) appeals several issues arising out of her divorce from Daniel
Rogers (“husband”). We affirm the trial court because none of the issues raised by the wife were
preserved for appeal.
Rule 5A:18 provides 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.” (Emphasis added). “The main purpose of requiring timely specific objections is to
afford the trial court an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thus avoiding
unnecessary appeals and reversals.” Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44, 400 S.E.2d 164, 167
(1991). Moreover, “[i]t is the duty of a party, as a rule, when he objects to evidence, to state the
grounds of his objection, so that the trial judge may understand the precise question or questions
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
he is called upon to decide.” Jackson v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 179 Va. 642, 651, 20
S.E.2d 489, 492 (1942).
Nowhere in the circuit court record did wife state the grounds for her objections. The
statement of facts that she provides merely describes the evidence presented to the circuit court.
It does not mention any motions or arguments made by counsel, nor does it note objections and
the grounds therefor to the circuit court’s rulings.
Although the statement of facts is deafeningly silent with respect to any incidents of trial,
the circuit court’s final decree does twice mention objections made by wife. First, the court
noted that it made its finding that husband has two children not born of the marriage “over the
objection of [wife].” Second, in the second to last paragraph of the decree, the circuit court
stated, “[Wife] objects to the award of spousal support as inadequate in amount and duration, the
award of child support as inappropriately calculated, and the failure of the court to award
attorney fees to her.” However, nowhere in the decree are the grounds stated upon which wife
made any of her objections.
Finally, wife’s signing of the decree as “seen and objected to” does not remedy her
failure to set forth her objections with specificity. We have repeatedly held that “endorsement of
an order ‘Seen and objected to’ is not specific enough to meet the requirements of Rule 5A:18.”
Herring v. Herring, 33 Va. App. 281, 286, 532 S.E.2d 923, 927 (2000).
We cannot assume that [wife’s] objection and reasons were
proffered but not made a part of the record. Rule 5A:8 requires
[an] appellant to present a complete transcript for this Court to
consider his or her issues on appeal. Even assuming that the same
issues were raised at trial as on appeal, we do not know if counsel
stated legal reasons to support his theory or merely argued the
weight of the evidence.
Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 516-17, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738-39 (1991) (en banc).

- 3 -
On this record, wife’s general objections are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
Rule 5A:18. Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of
justice, wife does not argue that we should invoke those exceptions. See e.g., Redman v.
Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (“In order to avail oneself of
the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not
that a miscarriage might have occurred.” (emphasis added)). We will not consider an “ends of
justice” argument under Rule 5A:18 sua sponte. See Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App.
752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc).
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that all of wife’s issues on appeal are procedurally
defaulted under Rule 5A:18. We therefore affirm the decision of the circuit court.
Affirmed.