• The information provided on this web blog is public information and is not individualized legal advice. Do not take any legal action on any information contained in this blog!!! Always consulting with an attorney in your state about your legal issues. The presentation of information on this blog does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with my firm or with me. While I have attempted to maintain the information on this blog as accurately as possible, this information may contain errors or omissions, for which I disclaim any liability. Case law from other jurisdictions discussed here are discussed for comparative purposes only. The author is licensed to practice only in the Commonwealth of Virginia and not in any other state. Despite the foregoing, this material could be considered to be ADVERTISING MATERIAL. The responsible party for this blog is Robert R. Hagy, II Esq., an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia, of the Law Offices of Rob Hagy, P.C., whose address is 154 Hansen Rd., Suite 202-B, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    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.  




    May 16, 2023

    February 20, 2023

    January 25, 2023

    December 19, 2022

    October 03, 2022

    June 02, 2022

    March 08, 2022

    October 28, 2021

    February 19, 2021

    October 20, 2020


    Important Laws Affecting Family Law Matters

    • Virginia Code Section 20-107.3
      This provision of Virginia law governs the manner and rules for dividing martial property upon divorce.
    • Virginia Code Section 20-108.2
      This provision of Virginia law sets forth the child support guidelines-a table of reference for determining the base monthly child support obligation.
    • Virginia Code Section 20-124.3
      This statute sets forth the factors that a court will consider in divorce proceedings, temporary proceedings, or modification proceedings to determine what custody and visitation arrangement would be best for the child or children involved.

    Child Support Calculator