West v. West, 717 S.E.2d 831

Final decree of divorce entered November 15, 2007; remand to circuit court to recalibrate child support; Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed petition for lack of jurisdiction in 2009.
During remand, motions to modify based on changed circumstances were filed by both parties; bench ruling on December 15, 2009 terminated child support retroactively and set a new child support period, without written memorialization.
May 27, 2010, the trial court suspended spousal support payments effective May 1, 2010 pending merits proceedings.
July 26, 2010, presiding judge recused; December 16, 2010, new judge held the mandate prevented consideration beyond its scope and that there was no reinstatement order; vacated post-remand orders for lack of jurisdiction or as interlocutory.
On appeal, this Court held the trial court could hear modifications based on changed circumstances; declined to review the reinstatement error for lack of preservation; upheld vacatur of interlocutory orders as within discretion.
Remand ordered to determine current changes in condition and, if warranted, recalculate child and spousal support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to modify support despite mandate	West contends the mandate did not bar modifications based on changed circumstances	West argues the mandate restricts remand actions beyond its scope	Trial court erred in ruling it lacked jurisdiction to hear modifications
Effect of lack of formal reinstatement order	West asserts reinstatement was required to modify	West failed to preserve the issue; Rule 5A:18/5A:20(c) defeats review	Issue not addressed on the merits due to lack of preservation
Vacating interlocutory orders without cause	West argues the court must show cause for vacating pendente lite orders	West relies on Pinkard and Kirn to argue vacatur may be done; not required to state a basis	Interlocutory orders vacated within trial court’s sound discretion; affirmed
Authority to relitigate post-remand matters not decided on appeal	West sought modification of child/spousal support based on post-appeal changes	West’s positions were not barred by law of the case because material facts changed	Remand authority to consider changes in condition; law of the case did not preclude modification

West v. West, 53 Va.App. 125 (2008) (mandate guidance on child support recalculation)
Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (1939) (mandate scope limited; law of the case doctrine applicable)
United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64 (4th Cir. 1993) (mandate rule confines remand proceedings)
Hart v. Hart, 35 Va.App. 221 (2001) (remand scope limits; extraneous amendments improper)
Pinkard v. Pinkard, 12 Va.App. 848 (1991) (pendente lite support remains court-controlled)
Robbins v. Robbins, 48 Va. App. 466 (2006) (pendente lite matters stay within court control)
Rowe v. Rowe, 33 Va.App. 250 (2000) (law of the case does not apply to post-judgment changes in circumstance)
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 276 Va. 19 (2008) (law-of-the-case considerations and appellate waiver)
Kirn v. Bembury, 163 Va. 891 (1935) (interlocutory orders and post-trial actions treated differently)
Freezer v. Miller, 163 Va. 180 (1934) (interlocutory judgments generally modifiable prior to final judgment)