Faysal M. Zedan v. Sylvie E. Westheim, 60 Va. App. 556

Zedan and Westheim’s marriage was annulled on bigamy grounds; three children involved; an earlier separation and child support/spousal support terms existed but not court-ordered.
Mother filed for annulment in June 2005; she sent an answer drafted by her counsel confessing to child support obligations tied to an annulment order.
On January 24, 2006, the Fairfax County circuit court entered a final decree of annulment declaring the marriage void ab initio and ordering $7,000/month child support beginning February 2006; the address listed for father was a non-existent Jetta address.
In October 2011, while in the U.S., mother sought to show cause for father’s alleged nonpayment; father contended he never received notice of the decree; trial court found contempt, calculated arrears of $205,140.72, and awarded a $25,758 tuition-credit against the arrears.
Father testified he was unaware of the decree’s existence and that his signature on the mother-prepared answer was signed remotely; the ROA did not show notice of mailing, and the decree listed an inaccurate address; the trial court ultimately held there was no notice and relied on mother’s testimony for key findings.
Appellate court reversed in part: contempt reversed due to lack of notice; the decree not void ab initio; tuition credit reversed for lack of a modifying agreement; remanded to enforce the valid annulment decree’s child support provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lack of notice per Code § 20-99.1:1(A) precludes contempt	Zedan contends no notice was provided after he filed an answer.	Westheim contends the statute applies when an answer is filed and notice is required.	Contempt reversed; lack of notice precludes willful disobedience.
Whether lack of notice renders the annulment decree void ab initio	Zedan argues the decree is void due to no notice.	Westheim argues the statute’s notice requirement is not satisfied.	Decree not void ab initio; still valid and enforceable.
Whether tuition payments to a third party can credit child support	Zedan argues tuition payments should credit the arrears as a modification.	Westheim argues there was no agreement to credit and payments were gifts.	No credit without a binding agreement; arrears restored to $205,140.72.
Whether Code § 8.01-428(C) applies to the motion to vacate	Zedan argues equal basis under §8.01-428(C).	Westheim contends applicability.	§8.01-428(C) does not apply; issue resolved on other grounds.

Hicks v. Mellis, 275 Va. 213 (2008) (notice failure may render judgment voidable, not void)
Nelson v. Warden, 262 Va. 276 (2001) (failure to notify may render judgment voidable)
Whiting v. Whiting, 262 Va. 3 (2001) (failure to provide notice of final decree can be voidable not void)
Evans v. Smyth-Wythe Airport Comm’n, 255 Va. 69 (1998) (mode of procedure could render judgment void ab initio)
Rawls v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 213 (2009) (illustrates void ab initio concepts for improper procedures)
Soliman v. Soliman, 12 Va. App. 234 (1991) (distinguishes direct appeal context from collateral attack)
Hicks v. Mellis, 275 Va. 213 (2008) (see above)
Gallagher v. Gallagher, 35 Va. App. 470 (2001) (credits for non-conforming payments require agreement and no adverse effect)