Judy Kay Reaves v. James Kelly Tucker
67 Va. App. 719
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Reaves (wife) and Tucker (husband) separated; husband filed for temporary support in 2014 and wife counterclaimed for divorce. A pretrial conference (June 29, 2015) produced a conference order and a Rule 1:18 scheduling order (trial set for March 17, 2016) with deadlines for disclosures and a warning that undisclosed exhibits/witnesses would be excluded.
- Wife’s counsel withdrew in January 2016; the trial court denied a continuance request on February 25, 2016.
- Wife (pro se) filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals on March 7, 2016 challenging the February 25 denial; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal March 22, 2016 as premature (not a final dispositive order).
- On the scheduled trial date (March 17, 2016) the trial court denied wife’s request to stay or continue, enforced the scheduling order, and prohibited wife from introducing exhibits or calling witnesses that she had failed to disclose (except for rebuttal/impeachment); wife presented little or no evidence at trial.
- Wife appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction after she filed the interlocutory appeal and that the court abused its discretion enforcing the pretrial orders and excluding evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reaves) | Defendant's Argument (Tucker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a notice of appeal of a nonappealable interlocutory order divests the trial court of jurisdiction and requires a stay | Filing the notice of appeal transferred jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals and divested the trial court | The Court of Appeals lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal, so jurisdiction never left the trial court; no stay required | Court held the appeal was not within the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction, so the trial court retained jurisdiction and was not required to stay proceedings |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying continuance requests and enforcing scheduling deadlines | Denial of continuance and enforcement of deadlines deprived wife of opportunity to present evidence and obtain counsel | Scheduling order was entered with counsel present, required good cause for continuances, and wife failed to show good cause or preparedness | Court held no abuse of discretion: deadlines and continuance standard properly applied and enforced |
| Whether excluding undisclosed witnesses/exhibits (except rebuttal/impeachment) violated wife's rights | Enforcement prevented wife from presenting her case and meeting burdens on marital property/spousal support | Wife failed to identify or exchange lists as required; husband complied; scheduling order warned of exclusion consequences | Court upheld enforcement; exclusion was within trial court’s discretion and wife presented no specific excluded evidence she was prevented from offering |
| Whether wife was entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal | Wife sought fees related to appeal/trial conduct | Trial court declined; argued no abuse of discretion in declining fees given record | Court affirmed denial of attorney’s fees; awarding fees is discretionary and no abuse found |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene v. Greene, 223 Va. 210 (court explains that once an appellate court acquires jurisdiction over parties and subject matter, the trial court must cease) (jurisdiction transfer principle)
- McCoy v. McCoy, 55 Va. App. 524 (discusses effect of a notice of appeal on lower court jurisdiction and limits when appellate court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Prizzia v. Prizzia, 45 Va. App. 280 (Court of Appeals is a court of limited jurisdiction; it needs statutory authority to hear appeals)
- Kotara v. Kotara, 55 Va. App. 705 (court may exercise limited powers—e.g., awarding fees—even where it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the main appeal)
- Ruby v. Secretary of the U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. en banc) (trial court may proceed where an appeal is clearly nonappealable; stay is discretionary)
- de Haan v. de Haan, 54 Va. App. 428 (illustrates judicial efficiency considerations and that trial courts sometimes stay proceedings during interlocutory appeals when appropriate)