JANINE HELEN ADELMAN BROWNING v. LARRY GRANT BROWNING
Record No. 2012-16-3
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
OPINION BY JUDGE WESLEY G. RUSSELL, JR.
Present: Judges Petty, Alston and Russell
Argued at Lexington, Virginia
PUBLISHED
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
Josiah T. Showalter, Jr., Judge Designate
Thomas P. Walk (Altizer, Walk and White, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant.
Robert M. Galumbeck (Galumbeck and Kegley, Attorneys, on brief), for appellee.
Janine Browning (“wife“) appeals an order of the circuit court regarding the equitable distribution of the marital estate and the award of spousal support resulting from her divorce from Larry Browning (“husband“). Because we find a trial transcript that was not timely filed is indispensable to our resolution of the issues raised on appeal, we consider those issues waived and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
BACKGROUND
“On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to husband, the prevailing party below, and grant him “all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.“” Bajgain v. Bajgain, 64 Va. App. 439, 443, 769 S.E.2d 267, 269 (2015) (quoting Anderson v. Anderson, 29 Va. App. 673, 678, 514 S.E.2d 369, 372 (1999)).
The parties were married on January 27, 1967. The instant divorce action was initiated on April 30, 2007, when wife filed a complaint for divorce in the Circuit Court of Washington County. On May 25, 2007, husband filed his answer and cross-complaint. Both parties sought a divorce and equitable distribution; wife additionally requested temporary and permanent spousal support and attorney‘s fees. Because husband, an attorney, practiced regularly before the court, a judge designate was appointed. Wife filed a motion for the judge designate to recuse himself, which was denied, and the designated judge for several years thereafter heard numerous pendente lite and ancillary matters and entered orders in accord with his rulings. Ultimately, however, after wife again moved for recusal on alternative grounds, the initial judge designate recused himself by order dated October 7, 2011, nunc pro tunc to August 23, 2011. A second judge designate was appointed, but then also recused himself. Ultimately, a third judge designate, who entered the order from which this appeal is taken, was appointed as judge designate on November 18, 2011.1
On March 6, 2012, a scheduling order was entered setting the matter for a two-day trial in July 2012. In lieu of trial in July 2012, a hearing was held on the parties’ intervening motions. On October 16, 2012, the court entered an order reflecting its rulings on those issues and resetting the trial date for November 19, 2012. On that date, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issues related to the grounds of divorce, equitable distribution, and spousal support. Alleged marital agreements and other items were offered into evidence.
Shortly after the November 19, 2012 hearing, the court reporter produced a transcript of the hearing. Copies of the transcript were provided to counsel for the parties and the trial judge. No copy of the transcript was filed with the clerk of the trial court at that time.2
Because additional time was needed for wife‘s expert witness to update his report on the valuation of husband‘s law practice and the evidentiary hearing had lasted longer than the time allotted, the case was carried over to February 26, 2013. Thereafter, the
It appears that in June 2013, wife sought a further continuance. Husband objected and filed a renewed motion for bifurcation of the divorce from the property and support issues. The court granted both requests. By order dated August 15, 2013, the court memorialized the bifurcation, granted the parties a divorce on separation grounds, and continued the other issues generally. The remaining issues were noticed for a hearing on January 8, 2014. In addition to the evidence adduced on that date ore tenus, the court permitted the parties to submit their expert witness testimony via deposition and offered an opportunity for them to call potential other witnesses live at a future date.
A transcript of the January 8, 2014 hearing was prepared and received by counsel for the parties. A copy of the transcript was filed with the clerk of the trial court on March 10, 2014.
No further ore tenus evidentiary hearings were conducted. The parties were permitted to submit for consideration additional exhibits and post-hearing memoranda.
The trial court issued a letter opinion on July 16, 2016. Both parties presented draft orders memorializing the court‘s rulings for the court to review, and a brief hearing was held on the matter. Ultimately, the court entered its final decree regarding spousal support and equitable distribution on November 16, 2016. Wife filed her notice of appeal with the clerk of the circuit court on December 7, 2016.
In her appeal, wife argues that the trial court erred regarding equitable distribution, the classification of certain pieces of property, in its interpretation of a trust agreement, in the division of certain pieces of personal property, in failing to award her attorney‘s fees, and regarding the effective date selected for the commencement of spousal support payments.
In response, husband not only addresses the merits of wife‘s appeal, but moves to dismiss the appeal based on alleged violations of
ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Review
Husband‘s motion to dismiss the appeal is premised on requirements imposed by the Rules of the Supreme Court. Interpretation of the Rules is a legal question that we address de novo. Belew v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 173, 177, 726 S.E.2d 257, 259 (2012). Rules of statutory construction apply equally to the interpretation of the Rules, so that “[i]n construing the language of rules and statutes, “we must give effect to the [drafters‘] intention[s] as expressed by the language used unless a literal interpretation of the language would result in a manifest absurdity.“” Muse Const. Group, Inc. v. Commonwealth Bd. of Contractors, 61 Va. App. 125, 130-31, 733 S.E.2d 690, 692 (2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Conyers v. Martial Arts World of Richmond, Inc., 273 Va. 96, 104, 639 S.E.2d 174, 178 (2007)). Thus, the Rules are applied according to their plain language. Thornton v. Glazer, 271 Va. 566, 570, 628 S.E.2d 327, 328 (2006).
Because husband seeks dismissal of the appeal, we note that, although we may dismiss an appeal for non-compliance with the Rules,
II. Failure to File Notice of Filing Transcripts
[w]ithin 10 days after the transcript is filed or, if the transcript is filed prior to the filing of the notice of appeal, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, counsel for appellant shall: (i) give written notice to all other counsel of the date on which the transcript was filed, and (ii) file a copy of the notice with the clerk of the trial court.
For cases involving multiple transcripts,
In this case, there is no dispute that wife failed to file the notice of filing transcripts required by
The potential sanction for failure to file a notice of filing transcript is specified in
[a]ny failure to file the notice required by this Rule that materially prejudices an appellee will result in the affected transcripts being stricken from the record on appeal. For purposes of this Rule, material prejudice includes preventing the appellee from raising legitimate objections to the contents of the transcript or misleading the appellee about the contents of the record.
(Emphasis added). Thus, striking the subject transcripts from the record on appeal is the appropriate sanction for failing to file a notice of filing transcript(s); however, such sanction is imposed only if the appellee suffers material prejudice as a result of the failure to file the notice.
Here, we discern no prejudice, material or otherwise, that husband has suffered as a result of wife‘s failure to file a notice of filing transcripts in this case. Husband timely received copies of the transcripts at issue and does not allege that they contain any errors. Husband did not allege in his motion or on brief that he suffered any prejudice from wife‘s failure to file a notice of filing transcripts, and, at oral argument, he conceded that he had suffered no prejudice as a result of the violation of
III. Failure to Timely File the November 19, 2012 Hearing Transcript
Although a challenge under
The content of the record on appeal is delineated by
Here, although the November 19, 2012 transcript was prepared by the court reporter and provided to counsel for the parties and the trial judge in January 2013, it was not filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court until January 19, 2017, two days after the
Wife may very well be correct that husband‘s defense of the appeal has in no way been prejudiced by the fact that the November 19, 2012 hearing transcript was first filed with the clerk of the trial court a mere two days after the
The sanction for failure to comply with
Wife next argues that the transcript, in fact, was timely filed; it was just filed with the trial judge as opposed to the clerk of the trial court. Once again, wife‘s argument fails under the plain meaning of the Rules.
The conclusion that delivery of a hearing transcript to the trial judge does not constitute filing with the clerk of the trial court is further supported by other definitions in
Cf. GEICO v. Hall, 260 Va. 349, 355, 533 S.E.2d 615, 617 (2000) (applying the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which “provides that mention of a specific item in a statute implies that omitted items were not intended to be included within the scope of the statute” (quoting Turner v. Wexler, 244 Va. 124, 127, 418 S.E.2d 886, 887 (1992))); Zinone v. Lee‘s Crossing Homeowners Ass‘n, 282 Va. 330, 337, 714 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2011) (“[W]hen the General Assembly has used specific language in one instance, but omits that language or uses different language when addressing a similar subject elsewhere in the Code, we must presume that the difference in the choice of language was intentional.“). Accordingly, the court reporter providing the November 19, 2012 transcript to the trial judge did not make it a part of the record.
Having concluded that the November 19, 2012 transcript is not a part of the record on appeal, we must determine the effect of that conclusion. In his motion, husband seeks dismissal of the appeal. Dismissal, however, is not the appropriate remedy for the absence of a transcript because “the failure to timely file [a] transcript . . . [does] not deprive the Court of Appeals of its active jurisdiction to proceed to judgment . . . .” Smith, 281 Va. at 470, 706 S.E.2d at 893. Instead, consistent with the language of
Here, it is clear that the November 19, 2012 hearing transcript is indispensable to our consideration of wife‘s assignments of error. The November 19, 2012 hearing was the main hearing in the case regarding the issues of equitable distribution, valuation of assets, classification of property, and spousal support. Without the transcript, we cannot know with certainty the arguments made by the parties or the evidence that the trial judge could consider. Wife, displaying credible candor, acknowledged at oral argument that we cannot resolve her assignments of error without consideration of the November 19, 2012 hearing transcript.
Therefore, consistent with
Although enforcing the Rules of Court may lead to harsh results in individual cases, it is not unfair. Mayo v. Dep‘t. of Commerce, 4 Va. App. 520, 522, 358 S.E.2d 759, 761 (1987) (“[C]ompliance with [the Rules of
The Rules and case law are clear: it is the responsibility of an appellant to provide us with a record sufficient to allow us to reach his or her assignments of error. See, e.g., White v. Morano, 249 Va. 27, 30, 452 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1995) (“[T]he onus is upon the appellant to provide the reviewing court with a sufficient record from which it can be determined whether the trial court erred as the appellant alleges. If an insufficient record is furnished, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.“);
CONCLUSION
Because the November 19, 2012 hearing transcript is not part of the record and is indispensable to our resolution of wife‘s assignments of error, we must deem the assignments of error waived, and therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.6
Affirmed.