Parks v. Parks

666 S.E.2d 547, 52 Va. App. 663, 2008 Va. App. LEXIS 437
CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedSeptember 23, 2008
Docket1991071
StatusPublished
Cited by192 cases

This text of 666 S.E.2d 547 (Parks v. Parks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Parks v. Parks, 666 S.E.2d 547, 52 Va. App. 663, 2008 Va. App. LEXIS 437 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

*664 FELTON, Chief Judge.

Margaret A. Parks (wife) appeals from the trial court’s July-31, 2007, final equitable distribution order. On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred by: (1) awarding wife credit for only a 1.5% commission on the sale of husband’s prior home and the purchase of the marital home; (2) requiring husband to pay one-half the value of stocks at the time of sale rather than one-half the value of stocks at the time the assets were to have been conveyed to wife; and (3) giving husband a post-separation credit for principal reduction on the mortgage of the marital home.

On appeal, wife presents no legal authority in support of her three arguments. Rule 5A:20(e) provides that the opening brief shall include “[t]he principles of law, the argument, and the authorities relating to each question presented” (Emphasis added). “Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record do not permit appellate consideration.” Cirrito v. Cirrito, 44 Va.App. 287, 302 n. 7, 605 S.E.2d 268, 275 n. 7 (2004) (citing Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va.App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992)). The Supreme Court recently announced that when a party’s “failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of Rule 5A:20(e)” is significant, “the Court of Appeals may ... treat a question presented as waived.” Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008). Here, we find wife’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) as to each question presented to be significant. Accordingly, wife’s questions presented are waived, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed without opinion as to whether error exists in the record.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stephen George Rusiecki v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Stanley Uchenna Nwoke v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Jingjing Zheng v. CCRM Northern Virginia, LLC
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Inova Health Systems v. Nha-Uyen Nguyen
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Armani Maxwell Myrick v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Todd Leslie Puckett v. K.S.
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
David Kirdassi v. Mitchell Scott White, DC
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Malik Sayvon Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Mandy Lynn Corbin v. Cody Charles Schrock
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Thomas Fullen Williams v. Maggie Kelly Panter
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Marcus Eric Sears v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Aleatha Bright v. Stephanie Pouncey
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Dustin Ray Finney v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2024
Danial Selario, etc. v. Cynthia Sullivan
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2024
Danette Mertz v. Cynthia Sullivan
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
666 S.E.2d 547, 52 Va. App. 663, 2008 Va. App. LEXIS 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-parks-vactapp-2008.