COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

ROMINGER LEGAL

Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Courts of Virginia. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Benton and
Senior Judge Overton
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

HONGYI ZHOU
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0032-02-4 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
OCTOBER 15, 2002
BO L. ZHOU

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Leslie M. Alden, Judge

Edward V. O'Connor, Jr. (Byrd Mische, P.C.,
on brief), for appellant.

David M. Levy (Surovell, Jackson, Colten &
Dugan, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Hongyi Zhou (husband) contends the trial court erred in (1)
requiring him to transfer to Bo L. Zhou (wife) additional
retirement assets which were not covered by the final divorce
decree; (2) denying his motion to modify child support; and (3)
failing to give him a credit for childcare costs from June 2001
through December 2001. We affirm the trial court's ruling
because the record is insufficient to determine the issues
raised on appeal.

Discussion
In an appeal from a divorce decree, "[t]he burden is upon
the party appealing to point out the error in the decree and to
indicate how and why it was wrong." Kaufman v. Kaufman, 7
Va. App. 488, 499, 375 S.E.2d 374, 380 (1988).
Because the judgment of the court below is
presumed to be correct, the onus is upon the
appellant to provide the reviewing court
with a sufficient record from which it can
be determined whether the trial court erred
as the appellant alleges. If an
insufficient record is furnished, the
judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
White v. Morano, 249 Va. 27, 30, 452 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1995).
Husband failed to provide in the record on appeal
transcripts or statements of fact from (A) the June 8, 2001
hearing on wife's show cause motion at which the trial court
found that husband was "in violation" for failing to comply with
the terms of the final decree, and (B) the December 17, 2001
hearing at which husband asked the trial court to reconsider its
earlier rulings. At the conclusion of the June 8, 2001
evidentiary hearing, the trial judge found the husband in
violation of the final decree in failing to transfer the assets
and ordered the husband to transfer specific assets.
The record contains a Statement of Facts from the November
20, 2001 hearing. As a result of that hearing, the trial court
entered the November 30, 2001 order granting wife's motion to
compel and ordering husband to "transfer to [wife] the amount of
$9,443.76 of assets pursuant to the terms of the Final Decree of
Divorce." Although that Statement of Facts explains each
party's argument made to the trial court, it fails to indicate
the evidence presented to the trial court or the evidence relied
upon by the trial court in making its ruling.
The record also indicates the husband filed a motion to
modify his child support obligation and to obtain a credit for
overpayment. That motion was also considered at the November
20, 2001 hearing. The Statement of Facts also fails, however,
to recite the evidence that was presented at the hearing in
support of this motion to modify child support and to award a
credit for an alleged overpayment.
Moreover, neither the Statement of Facts nor the contested
orders contains the trial court's rationale for ruling as it did
on the motions. Absent any explanation as to what evidence the
trial court relied upon or why it ruled as it did, we cannot
determine whether it committed reversible error in making the
rulings complained of on appeal. In summary, because husband
failed to provide us with a sufficient record to substantiate
his allegations of trial error, we affirm the trial court's
decisions. See Kyhl v. Kyhl, 32 Va. App. 53, 59-60, 526 S.E.2d
292, 295 (2000) (holding that records of cases on appeal must be
"'accurate [and] complete to the degree necessary to adjudicate
the appeal'").
In addition, we award appellee her attorney's fees for this
appeal. Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court to
award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to wife for this
appeal and for any further proceeding in the trial court in
connection with the award of fees and costs.
Affirmed and remanded.

* Pursuant to Code 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Rule 5A:25 requires an appellant to file an appendix,
which "shall include," inter alia, "any testimony and other
incidents of the case germane to the questions presented."
Husband failed to designate for inclusion in the appendix a copy
of the signed Statement of Facts. Husband's omission hampered
efficient appellate review.

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE