858 S.E.2d 181
Va.2021Background
- Dr. Michelina Bonanno was a legal custodian (joint legal custody) of her granddaughter; the child’s mother died in 2018 and the stepfather, James Quinn, petitioned to adopt.
- The court ordered an investigation; social worker attempted contact in March 2019 and received voicemail/certified mail; Bonanno later spoke with the social worker in April and denied knowledge/consent.
- The circuit court entered a final adoption order on April 30, 2019; Quinn emailed the order to Bonanno May 21; Bonanno filed a notice of appeal and motions May 30 but had not intervened or appeared in the adoption proceeding before entry of the final order.
- Quinn moved to dismiss in the Court of Appeals on the ground Bonanno was not a party below and thus lacked standing; the Court of Appeals dismissed the consolidated appeals and awarded appellate fees to Quinn.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia granted review to decide (1) whether a non-party may appeal an adoption order and (2) whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in awarding appellate attorney’s fees under Rule 5A:30(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person who was not a party below may appeal an adoption order under Code § 17.1-405 | Bonanno: she is an "aggrieved person" (legal custodian) who lacked notice due to sealed proceedings and therefore may appeal | Quinn: "aggrieved party" means a party to the proceeding; Bonanno never intervened or entered an appearance and so lacks standing | The term "aggrieved party" means a litigant joined in the proceeding below; Bonanno lacked standing and Court of Appeals dismissal was correct |
| Whether Bonanno could have the adoption order declared void ab initio by a non-party | Bonanno: the order is void (fraud/lack of notice) so standing should not bar review | Quinn: circuit courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over adoptions; void-for-jurisdiction arguments only apply where court lacked authority; Bonanno failed to invoke intervention or a proper procedural vehicle | Court limited the reach of "void ab initio" principles: standing and proper procedural posture matter; here circuit court had jurisdiction and Bonanno’s posture did not permit merits review |
| Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by awarding appellate attorney’s fees under Rule 5A:30(b) | Bonanno: her appeal was not frivolous or for improper purpose; recent statutory amendments show custodians should be parties | Quinn: Rule 5A:30(b) permits fee awards based on the equities of adoption appeals; the 2020 statutory amendment was not retroactive | The Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion; Rule allows fees after considering equities; remanded to determine appropriate fee award for fees incurred in the Court of Appeals and the remand proceedings in circuit court |
Key Cases Cited
- LaCava v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 465 (2012) (standard of review for statutory and rule interpretation is de novo)
- Wingfield v. Crenshaw, 13 Va. (3 Hen. & M.) 245 (1808) (historic precedent that an appeal lies only for a party of record)
- Jones v. Rhea, 130 Va. 345 (1921) (a denied motion to intervene may be appealed as the movant was effectively a party for purposes of that ruling)
- Walton v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 85 (1998) (filing a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction in many respects)
- Velazquez v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 603 (2016) (trial court retains authority to act on matters expressly allowed by statute or court rules despite an appeal)
- Virginian-Pilot Media Cos. v. Dow Jones & Co., 280 Va. 464 (2010) (orders entered without subject-matter jurisdiction are void; limited application noted)
- Watson v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 347 (2019) (clarifies that void-judgment principle does not eliminate standing requirements and is limited to subject-matter jurisdiction defects)
- Collins v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 390 (2007) (Rule 1:1 does not bar motions to vacate when a judgment is void ab initio and the motion is filed by a party to the proceeding)
- Burrell v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 474 (2012) (example of vacatur where sentencing order was void ab initio)