Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer Rob Hagy

Don't Allow your Ego to Sabotage your Case! Contested Divorces Call for an Attorney to Fight your Battles.

From the Circuit Court in Arlington County comes the appeal of Fox v. Fox, Record No. 1380-22-4, wherein Mr. Fox, pro se husband/appellant appealed the court's judgment granting the motion to remove a motion filed previously and imposing sanctions against him. And there's more. Appellant filed continual invalid motions in this case. 

The Court of Appeals proceeded without oral argument after reviewing the briefs and called the appeal wholly without merit. "Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). The trial court’s judgment is affirmed."

"On appeal, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, granting it the benefit of any reasonable inferences.” Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632, 635 (2008) (quoting Smith v. Smith, 43 Va. App. 279, 282 (2004)). “That principle requires us to discard the evidence of the appellant which conflicts, either directly or inferentially, with the evidence presented by the appellee at trial.” Id. (quoting Petry v. Petry, 41 Va. App. 782, 786 (2003))."

After repeated show cause motions with failures to appear, Mr. Fox did not appear for a scheduled deposition and instead left the country to avoid the court's jurisdiction causing the court to bar any filings from him until he appeared personally.  After the divorce was ultimately granted, husband appealed the court's order awarding wife spousal support arrearages and child support.  The next year, husband sought permission to file a motion to correct the child support arrearage and modify his ongoing support obligation, but the court denied his motions until he posted a $25,000.00 bond. The ongoing filings and denial of motions continued with appellant even asking for a motion to be removed from the docket at 2:54 on a morning before court. Ultimately, Mr. Fox appealed to the Court of Appeals. 

"On appeal, husband generally alleges that the trial court erred by not granting his motion to “set aside, vacate[] and cancel” the orders finding him in contempt, imposing the “non-participation sanction,” and requiring the $25,000 participation bond. He also argues that the trial court erred by awarding wife attorney fees. Finally, he argues that “[i]t is now high time” to “dismiss” the divorce
case with prejudice given “there is no possible reason for it . . . to stay open,” as no “‘normal’ divorce issues remain to be adjudicated."

"Husband challenges the trial court’s award of attorney fees to wife because he did not make any false statements and “has no money and no income other than social security-type income.” He argues that under the “American rule,” wife was responsible for her own attorney fees even if she was the prevailing party. He also argues that attorney fees were not permissible under Code § 8.01-271.1 because he did not file a “false” “writing” with the trial court."

“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 this Court to attain the ends of justice.” Rule 5A:18.“

The Cout of Appeals affirmed and remanded this case back to the Arlington Circuit Court. To conclude, Mr. Fox's arguments were noted as "serial filings" and were void of the rule of law, as a pro se party, he misread statutes that were not supported by authority.

Consult an attorney! The appellant was in over his head from the beginning and clearly and could have used the help of a professional while navigating the divorce, custody, visitation and child support matters instead of filing invalid motions and claiming that the American court rules were wrong.  

 

 

 

The Appeal of Spousal Support Because of a Life Changing Accident Doesn't Necessarily Mean Appellant Prevails

From the Loudoun County Circuit Court, comes record no. 0819-22-4, Frank Howard v. Suzanne Howard. whereby Frank Howard appealed the decision of the Circuit Court that prevented a change in the amount of spousal support agreed upon to be paid to Suzanne Howard. Several months after the court date, Mr. Howard was a pedestrian in an accident that left him needing multiple surgeries and a need to retire. Despite those facts, Mr. Howard ultimately didn't have a substantial change in financial circumstances after retiring and after receiving disability. However, Mr. Howard "believes the court erred by not admitting his testimony about how the parties reached the original agreement and not allowing him to question the wife about her income in 2019. After the circuit court sustained the wife’s relevance objections, however, the husband did not proffer the excluded testimony for the record. Similar to the situation with a continuance, “[w]hen evidence is excluded by the court, the aggrieved party must make a proper proffer of the excluded testimony to preserve the ruling for appellate review.” 

"The husband contends that the circuit court erred by finding that no material change in circumstances warranting modification of its spousal support award had occurred. Specifically, he believes that the court erroneously considered only his income and no other factors, such as the depletion of his assets and his inability to continue working. The husband argues that his injuries from the debilitating accident constituted “a totally unexpected and substantial material change in circumstances affecting his ability to pay spousal support.” In support, he suggests that his injuries “were so severe they affected every aspect of his life.”

"The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the eleventh-hour motion to continue the hearing. We do not consider the husband’s challenge to the exclusion of certain testimony because the expected testimony was not proffered for the record. In addition, the record supports the circuit court’s conclusion that the husband failed to establish a material change in circumstances warranting a change in the spousal support award. For these reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is affirmed. We also deny the wife’s request for attorney fees and costs."

Ultimately, Mr. Howards accident and lifestyle changed did not prove to change his financial situation and the spousal support decision was upheld. Make sure to consult with an attorney well-versed in appeals before taking on the expense. The cause may not be worth the expense. 

Lack of Engagement, Lack of Follow Through and More and More Drugs, lead to Termination of Parental Rights.

Out of Chesterfield County comes this Appeal of a Termination of Parental Rights case. 

In Cannon v. Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Department of Social Services, father appeals the Termination of Rights ruling from the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County because his motion for continuance (due to a change in his attorney three months prior) on the last day of trial was denied. Of mention, father had previously appealed the JDR termination ruling to Circuit Court. 

“The decision of whether to grant a continuance is committed to the discretion of the trial court. We will reverse ‘a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a continuance . . . only upon a showing of abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice to the movant.’” Shah v. Shah, 70 Va. App. 588, 593 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Haugen v. Shenandoah Valley Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 274 Va. 27, 34 (2007)).

"Father contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance. We disagree".

The 2 minor children, both born into addiction, now have the opportunity to live healthy and productive lives without the interference of drugs. Again, the DSS does the hard but necessary thing and takes these very young children out of a no-win situation. A 15-month-old experiences withdrawal for 4 months! If ever you have seen a drug addicted baby in the NICU, it is a sight you do not forget. 

"When S.C. first entered foster care, she was fourteen months old and weighed only fifteen pounds. While in foster care, S.C. steadily gained weight, reaching 25.8 pounds by the time of the circuit court hearing. S.C. also completed feeding and speech therapy and was “a very active and busy little girl” according to her foster mother. D.C. experienced withdrawal symptoms for four months after being born substance exposed, however during the circuit court hearing, both children were described as “developmentally on target.”

While the appeal was denied based on appropriate legal merits, what was not denied was a chance at life for the 2 minor children who did not have the ability to detox or thrive on their own. This is another case where the best interests of the children prevail. 

If need assistance with your divorce, or if you have questions about appeals or attorneys fees, please feel free to call us at (434)293-4562 or email us at [email protected]. Or, you can visit us online at www.charlovilttesledivorceattorney.com.- Rob Hagy 

 

Broken parental relationships and the importance of the GAL!

This case comes from the Circuit Court in Amherst County. 

 Appellant Christopher Hill disputes both of the Amherst County Circuit Court's decisions to grant custody to the mother and finding there was no good reason to remove and replace the GAL. In Christopher Hill v. Shanita Hill, the father was mostly absent from his twin girl's lives. When he did see them, it was volatile, with him calling them "bullies" and ultimately causing them to be afraid of him. He did however move from Florida to Virginia to try to build a relationship with them, but it just didn't happen. Mr. Hill has PTSD and was on medication and believed that to be the reason he was so easily agitated. He also claimed that because the GAL in their case knew the judge's wife, that she should be removed. 

  "In these two appeals Christopher O. Hill (father) challenges the circuit court’s custody and visitation order, as well as its denial of father’s motion to remove the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL). Father argues that the judge in the Amherst County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) was biased. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties on appeal, we conclude that the circuit court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment." After hearing the evidence and arguments, the circuit court found that, notwithstanding father’s “sweeping allegations,” there was no basis for father’s claim that the GAL was not qualified. The circuit court further found that “knowing someone doesn’t create a conflict of interest.” The circuit court accepted the GAL’s proffers that she had not discussed employment with the judge’s wife until after the JDR court hearing. The circuit court found that there was no conflict of interest. The circuit court further explained that “this is an appeal de novo as if no hearing had occurred in [d]istrict [c]ourt,” and there was “no legal basis” to remove the GAL. Mother presented evidence that father had had very limited visitation with the children between December 2019 and May 2021. At father’s last visitation in May 2021, mother felt uncomfortable and asked her brother to come by. When mother’s brother arrived, father chased his car and told him to “get out [of] the car and fight him like a man.” Father also yelled towards the children, frightening them enough that one child grabbed a baseball bat. The police were called to help diffuse the situation. Mother suggested to father that he schedule a visit with the children at the YWCA, but father was reluctant to do so because he did “not feel comfortable or safe in Amherst County” after the previous visitation incident. Mother also testified that the weekly telephone calls between father and the children were “Not good.” She had to be the one to call father, because the children did not want to do so. Mother testified that the children frequently cried and were “frustrated” after speaking with father, who told them they were “mean” and called them bullies. Father had a “live-in care giver” who slept in his room which left his second bedroom available for his children. He participated in counseling, through “Telehealth,” to address his “chronic PTSD, depression, anxiety, [and] insomnia” and was compliant with his medications. Father claimed he was stable and not a risk to the children. The circuit court found that father’s relationship with the children was “broken.” Although the circuit court recognized that father had “come a long way,” the circuit court found that “the father’s got issues he’s dealing with, he needs to get his situation completely stabilized.” The circuit court granted sole custody to mother. The circuit court awarded visitation to father through the YWCA’s supervised visitation program and “additional contact with the children in the therapeutic counseling session.” The circuit court maintained father’s weekly telephone visitation with the children for thirty minutes.

In these appeals the Court affirmed the Circuit Court's rulings awarding custody to the mom and finding no fault with the GAL. The facts spoke for themselves in these appeals. 

It is always the hope of the courts to see co-parenting work and benefit all parties and for relationships with children restored however that isn't always the case, at least not immediately. Ultimately, finding for the best interests of the children is the outcome the courts and the GAL's seek. 

Proving Harm to a Child Must Be More Substantial than an Assumption of Harm!

A party petitioning the court without evidence other than their own strong emotions does not mean they are entitled to the decision they believe is right. In this case, the circuit court's decision stood because the parties were unable to prove any harm to the involved child. 

In this January 24, 2023, published opinion regarding the case of Regginald Moore and Valerie Moore v. Dominique Joe, the Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court returned the child to the custody of her biological mother, Ms. Joe. The J&DR court heard and denied the custody and visitation actions brought by the child's former foster care custodians, Regginald and Valerie Moore.

Unsatisfied with the child's return, the Moore's appealed. On motion to strike, the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk found the Moore's failed to present evidence of actual harm to the minor child. The court dismissed the cases. The Moore's then appealed the dismissal of their petitions for custody and visitation of their former foster daughter as they assumed the court erred by excluding Dr. Tirrell’s de bene esse deposition. However, the court ruled the doctor's deposition did not show any harm to the child and would have not changed the outcome. So, the return of the child to the biological parents was affirmed. 

All too often, parties are convinced they are right merely because that is how they feel. Rather than file petitions based on emotion it is far better to consult with a family law attorney who can properly advise parties of the law. If you are in the Charlottesville area and have questions, please see us for a consultation. 

 

The Court of Appeals Did Not Issue Any Family Related Published or Unpublished Opinions Today.

Wife Fails to Appear at Her Requested Divorce Reconsideration Hearing; Court of Appeals Upholds Circuit Court Decision.

From the Circuit Court for Henrico County comes the divorce case of Grant v. Grant.

On November 29, 2021, the circuit court entered a final decree of divorce and granted husband a divorce on the grounds of living separate and apart for more than one year. The circuit court noted that although husband properly attempted to serve the complaint, wife failed to file an answer within the required period. The final decree included a handwritten notation including wife’s name and address and that she “objected to” the final decree. Above wife’s name appeared to be wife’s signature. The circuit court directed the clerk’s office to send attested copies of the divorce decree to husband’s counsel and wife. To follow, on December 3, 2021, wife asked the circuit court to reconsider the divorce decree, alleging that another person forged her signature on the document. By order entered December 7, 2021, the circuit court set a hearing on wife’s request for December 13, 2021 and directed the clerk to forward copies of that order to the parties. By order entered December 14, 2021, the circuit court dismissed the request because neither husband nor wife appeared at the hearing.

The wife appealed the dismissal on December 29, 2021.

Ultimately on appeal, the court affirmed the ruling of the circuit court. While the circuit court, after granting the divorce, permitted wife a hearing within 21 days after judgment to explore her allegations of fraud, she failed to appear at the hearing, and the court lost jurisdiction over the case without a hearing or ruling upon the issues raised.

 

If need assistance with your divorce, or if you have questions about appeals or attorneys fees, please feel free to call us at (434)293-4562 or email us at [email protected]. Or, you can visit us online at www.charlovilttesledivorceattorney.com.- Rob Hagy 

 

 

 

Appellant Fails to Provide Written Statement of Facts or Transcript and Circuit Court Judgment is Upheld.

In this unpublished case, Shvets v. Shvets, the circuit court's judgement was affirmed as Appellant (Husband) failed to file a transcript or a written statement of facts at the November 23, 2021 hearing.  

Appellant (Husband) was found in contempt for failure to pay child and spousal support previously ordered in this case and was ultimately sentenced to a jail term. Mr. Shvets claimed errors in the case with the City of Suffolk JDR and Circuit Court as the case ensued however when he appealed, he failed to provide any evidence or statement of facts supporting his claims therefore the Court of Appeals unanimously held that no oral argument was necessary and that the Court would not consider the point. 

Don't get behind on child support or spousal support payments! The consequences can be costly. Schedule a consult with us today if you are in a situation and unsure of how to proceed!

 

Virginia Beach DSS Prevails and Circuit Court's Decision to Terminate Parental Rights is Upheld.

For two years after the birth of her son, Appellant (Mother) tested positive for amphetamines. The son tested positive for amphetamines at birth, as well as being diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. When the Virginia Beach DSS intervened, removed the child and proceeded with a foster care plan for a goal of adoption, Appellant had already lost custody of her two other children. At the hearing, the Circuit Court terminated mother's parental rights. 

On Appeal, mother claimed that she had remedied her living conditions and her situation, yet she continued to test positive for amphetamines. Not wanting to cause further delay to this child or "wait" longer for Appellant to prove that she had changed her life, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Virginia Beach Circuit Court. 

 

The best interests of this child are for loving adoptive parents with a circle of support who can properly give him care!

If need assistance with child custody, visitation or divorce, or if you have questions about appeals, please feel free to call us at (434)293-4562 or email us at [email protected]. Or, you can visit us online at www.charlovilttesledivorceattorney.com.- Rob Hagy 

Recent Massachusetts Case Says Stock Options Not Shareable in Divorce Upon Ex-Spouse's New Job.

 A recent case from Massachusetts shows that being as clear as possible with your attorney about your wishes when negotiating a separation agreement will help you greatly should a dispute arise later on. In that case, a divorcing couple negotiated a separation agreement that merged into their divorce agreement under which the husband, a corporate executive, was to pay his wife $900 per week in alimony and $334 a week in child support. The agreement also said that should the husband receive “any manner of bonus” from his employer, he would share 31 percent of it with his ex-wife — 15 percent as alimony and 16 percent as child support. But the agreement did not spell out what would be considered a “bonus.”

Following the divorce, the husband took a new job where his compensation consisted of a salary, a bonus of up to 40 percent of his salary and stock options. Under his employment agreement, his options would vest early should the company be sold or merged. The company was subsequently sold. The husband was terminated and exercised his stock options, worth $1 million. The wife demanded to share in the options, characterizing them as a “bonus.” The husband, however, insisted that they did not qualify as a bonus because they were not a performance-based reward. He also pointed out that when they were negotiating the separation agreement, he repeatedly rebuffed the wife’s attempt to count potential stock options earned post-separation as part of any shareable bonus, insisting he would only pay alimony and support on cash bonuses. The Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed with the husband, noting that the term “bonus” can mean many things, but the intent of the parties is what governs, and the husband had made his intent clear. Still, the court found that the husband would still owe a portion of the proceeds as child support, since the obligation to pay child support isn’t something that can be negotiated away. If you’re interested in learning about how the courts might handle such an issue in your state, talk to a family lawyer where you live.