ROMINGER LEGAL
Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources
Need Legal Help?
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

LEGAL RESEARCH
COURT REPORTERS
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
PROCESS SERVERS
DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS
EXPERT WITNESSES

 

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

 
Web Rominger Legal

Legal News - Legal Headlines

 

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA



Present:  Judges Benton, Willis and Clements
Argued at Salem, Virginia


RAYNHAM T. HEARD
  MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 1120-01-3 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
          FEBRUARY 26, 2002
JANICE A. HEARD


FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY
Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge

 Raynham T. Heard, pro se.

 No brief or argument for appellee.



Code   8.01-335 provides, in pertinent part:
B.  Any court in which is pending a case
wherein for more than three years there has
been no order or proceeding, except to
continue it, may, in its discretion, order
it to be struck from its docket and the
action shall thereby be discontinued.  The
court may dismiss cases under this
subsection without any notice to the
parties.  The clerk shall provide the
parties with a copy of the final order
discontinuing or dismissing the case.  Any
case discontinued or dismissed under the
provisions of this subsection may be
reinstated, on motion, after notice to the
parties in interest, if known, or their
counsel of record within one year from the
date of such order but not after.

On September 11, 1997, Raynham T. Heard appealed to the
trial court orders entered in the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations District Court of Roanoke County, the substance and
effect of which he has not specified.  The matter continued on
the trial court's docket, with no order or proceeding except to
continue it, until February 28, 2001, when the trial court
entered an order discontinuing it and striking it from its
docket pursuant to Code   8.01-335(B).  Heard does not dispute
the merits of that action.
Although the statute and the trial court's order required
notice of its action to Heard, his first notice of the
discontinuance of his appeal was his receipt on April 19, 2001,
of a letter dated April 16, 2001, informing him of the court's
action.  After receiving this notice, Heard did not seek
reinstatement of his appeal pursuant to the statute.  Rather, he
undertook this appeal.
On appeal, Heard poses the following question:
Was the appellant wrongly denied proper
notice of the Docket call and the subsequent
orders until it was too late for him to
timely represent his interests before the
Court?
He has provided us no record to assist us in appraising his
contentions.  Thus, we consider the question that he poses on
appeal in the light of the record furnished by the trial court.
Heard first complains that he was given no notice of the
February 28, 2001 docket call and the proposed discontinuance of
his case.  The statute expressly declares such notice
unnecessary.  It is the duty of a party maintaining an action in
court to keep track of it and to pursue his rights and remedies
diligently.  The trial court's action on February 28, 2001
denied Heard no notice or process that was due him.
Heard next complains that the trial court clerk's failure
to send him timely notice of the discontinuance of his case
denied him the opportunity to "represent his interests before
the Court."  If by "the Court" Heard means the trial court, the
statute provided him one year from the discontinuance of his
case, ten months of which remained as of the time he received
notice of the discontinuance from the trial court's clerk, in
order to seek reinstatement.  His election not to pursue that
remedy was a decision of his own choosing.  That decision in no
way related to the timing of his notice from the trial court's
clerk.
If Heard's question is read to assert the denial of an
opportunity to represent his interests before this Court, the
procedural record of the case refutes his position.  We have
received and considered his appeal.
The trial court's remand of the matter to the juvenile and
domestic relations district court was consistent with the
requirements and purpose of Code   16.1-298(A).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
          Affirmed.

Clements, J., concurring.

I concur in the majority's conclusion affirming the judgment
of the trial court.  However, I would reach that conclusion by
finding appellate review procedurally barred in this case because
appellant failed to provide this Court with an appendix as
required by Rule 5A:25.
Rule 5A:25 provides that "[a]n appendix shall be filed by the
appellant in all cases" brought before this Court.  Seven copies
of the appendix are to be filed.  Rule 5A:25(b); Rule 5A:19(e).  
The appendix must include everything that is germane to the
appeal.  See Rule 5A:25(c).  In considering a case on appeal, we
may look beyond the appendix into the record, but we are not
required to do so.  See Rule 5A:25(h).
As the majority acknowledges, the appellant in this case
filed no appendix "to assist us in appraising his contentions."  
The only document he filed with this Court was his brief, which,
coincidentally, did not include any "references to the pages of
the . . . record," as required by Rule 5A:20.   Nevertheless, the
majority chooses to "consider the question [the appellant] poses
on appeal in the light of the record furnished by the trial
court."  I would not do so.
As the Supreme Court wrote in  Thrasher v. Burlage, 219 Va.
1007, 1009-10, 254 S.E.2d 64, 66 (1979) (per curiam):
The appendix is a tool vital to the
function of the appellate process in
Virginia.  Without it, the seven Justices of
this Court would have to pass the original
record from one to the other.  Much of the
contents, though material at trial, may be
utterly irrelevant to the issues posed on
appeal.  By requiring the publication and
distribution of an appendix which excludes
all irrelevancies, the Rules of Court
expedite the adjudication of the appeal and
reduce the costs.  By requiring the
inclusion of all parts of the record germane
to the issues, the Rules promote the cause
of plenary justice.
While the panel of judges considering the instant case on
appeal consisted of only three judges, the same principles apply
here.  Additionally, the judges of this Court are diversely
situated throughout the Commonwealth.  Thus, the filing of an
appendix, as required by the Rules, is, in my opinion, "essential
to an informed collegiate decision."  Id.
Furthermore, we do not presume on appeal that the trial court
has erred.  Indeed,
"[w]e have many times pointed out that on
appeal the judgment of the lower court is
presumed to be correct and the burden is on
the appellant to present to us a sufficient
record from which we can determine whether
the lower court has erred in the respect
complained of.  If the appellant fails to do
this, the judgment will be affirmed."
Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6
(1993) (quoting Justis v. Young, 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 S.E.2d 255,
256-57 (1961)).
For these reasons, I would hold that we are barred from
considering the question before us and would affirm the judgment
of the trial court.

* Pursuant to Code   17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
 We have consistently stated that "[w]e will not search the
record for errors in order to interpret the appellant's contention
and correct deficiencies in a brief."  Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14
Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992).







Ask a Lawyer

 

 

FREE CASE REVIEW BY A LOCAL LAWYER!
|
|
\/

Personal Injury Law
Accidents
Dog Bite
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
Libel & Slander
Product Liability
Slip & Fall
Torts
Workplace Injury
Wrongful Death
Auto Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Business/Corporate Law
Business Formation
Business Planning
Franchising
Tax Planning
Traffic/Transportation Law
Moving Violations
Routine Infractions
Lemon Law
Manufacturer Defects
Securities Law
Securities Litigation
Shareholder Disputes
Insider Trading
Foreign Investment
Wills & Estates

Wills

Trusts
Estate Planning
Family Law
Adoption
Child Abuse
Child Custody
Child Support
Divorce - Contested
Divorce - Uncontested
Juvenile Criminal Law
Premarital Agreements
Spousal Support
Labor/Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Workers Compensation
Real Estate/Property Law
Condemnation / Eminent Domain
Broker Litigation
Title Litigation
Landlord/Tenant
Buying/Selling/Leasing
Foreclosures
Residential Real Estate Litigation
Commercial Real Estate Litigation
Construction Litigation
Banking/Finance Law
Debtor/Creditor
Consumer Protection
Venture Capital
Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Sexual Harassment
Privacy Rights
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI / DOI
Assault & Battery
White Collar Crimes
Sex Crimes
Homocide Defense
Civil Law
Insurance Bad Faith
Civil Rights
Contracts
Estate Planning, Wills & Trusts
Litigation/Trials
Social Security
Worker's Compensation
Probate, Will & Trusts
Intellectual Property
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Tax Law
IRS Disputes
Filing/Compliance
Tax Planning
Tax Power of Attorney
Health Care Law
Disability
Elder Law
Government/Specialty Law
Immigration
Education
Trade Law
Agricultural/Environmental
IRS Issues

 


Google
Search Rominger Legal


 


LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!

NOW - CASE LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try it for FREE


 


Get Legal News
Enter your Email


Preview

We now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!

ADD A SEARCH ENGINE TO YOUR PAGE!!!

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT ROMINGER LEGAL

Ask Your Legal Question Now.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board

Find An Attorney

TERMS OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES

Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2010.

A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.