Opinion
Record No. 2304-92-1
August 24, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY G. DUANE HOLLOWAY, JUDGE.
(Lea Marie Donze, pro se, on brief).
No brief for appellee.
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Lea Marie Donze, appellant, contends that the trial court erred by entering the final decree of divorce while retaining jurisdiction to adjudicate property issues, without first specifically finding, as required by Code § 20-107.3(A), that entry of the decree of divorce and retention of property issues was "clearly necessary." Upon reviewing the record and the opening brief of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court. Rule 5A:27.
Rule 5A:18 provides in pertinent part: "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."
This Court recently addressed the issue presented in this case in Erickson-Dickson v. Erickson-Dickson, 12 Va. App. 381, 404 S.E.2d 388 (1991). In Erickson-Dickson, the husband contended on appeal that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Code § 20-107.3(A) with regard to retaining jurisdiction to determine equitable distribution issues. The husband in Erickson-Dickson failed to object to the court's ruling to bifurcate the issues and retain jurisdiction. 12 Va. App. at 389, 404 S.E.2d at 393. We held that the husband's "endorsement of the decree as 'seen and objected to' did not comply with Rule 5A:18." Id.
"To preserve an issue for appeal, a party must timely object and state his reasons therefor in order that the trial judge may correct the problem, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals, reversals, and mistrials." Id. at 389, 404 S.E.2d at 393. "Where the continued exercise of a special statutory jurisdiction depends upon proof of a fact or facts, the court has the power to make an erroneous factual finding, and the court acquires jurisdiction where that erroneous factual finding goes unchallenged." Id. Here, as in Erickson-Dickson, the only objection recorded by appellant was counsel's endorsement of the final decree under the phrase "Seen and Objected to." Accordingly, appellant did not comply with Rule 5A:18.
Rule 5A:18 allows this Court to consider a question not preserved "for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice." We find that neither "good cause" nor the "ends of justice" requires consideration of the question presented.
Accordingly, because appellant's generalized objection does not sufficiently state her objection, "together with the grounds therefor" as required by Rule 5A:18, we affirm the trial court's decree retaining jurisdiction to adjudicate property issues.
Appellee's request for sanctions is denied.
Affirmed.