 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brett v. Brett6/4/1996
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
Mary R. Brett (mother) appeals the decision of the circuit court granting the motion of Lawrence G. Brett (father) to reduce spousal and child support and deciding other issues. Mother raises the following issues on appeal:
(1)
whether the court erred in granting father's motion for reconsideration more than twenty-one days after entry of its March 3, 1995 order;
(2)
whether the court erred in denying mother's motion to dismiss father's motion to reduce support where father's motion failed to allege a material change in circumstances justifying a reduction in support;
(3)
whether the court erred in denying mother's motion to dismiss father's motion to reduce support when father was over $66,000 in arrearages in spousal and child support;
(4)
whether the court erred in denying mother's motion to reduce arrearages to judgment pursuant to terms of final divorce decree;
(5)
whether the court erred in denying mother's motion to dismiss when father failed to appear to testify for nine months;
(6)
whether the court erred in refusing to enter as admitted mother's Request for Admissions when father had not responded within twenty-one days, as required by Rule 4:11, and in failing to dismiss father's motion to reduce support;
(7)
whether the court erred in denying mother's motion to strike at the June 7, 1995 trial;
(8)
whether the court erred in imputing only $30,000 in income to father;
(9)
whether the court erred in retroactively modifying child and spousal support beginning August 1, 1994 and prospectively modifying child and spousal support beginning August 1, 1995;
(10)
whether the court erred in granting father retroactive relief based upon the filing of the motion despite father's failure to have the motion heard until June 1995;
(11)
whether the court erred in finding Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152, 409 S.E.2d 117 (1991) was not applicable;
(12) whether the court erred in failing to state that it considered all the statutory factors before reducing child support; and
(13)
whether the court erred in failing to state that it considered all the statutory factors before reducing spousal support.
Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
Motion to Reconsider
In 1993, both parties filed motions in the trial court to modify spousal support. By order dated March 3, 1995, the trial Judge memorialized his ruling following a June 25, 1993 hearing "Finding no change in circumstances warranting relief by either party," the trial Judge denied the motion of both parties." By order dated April 6, 1995, the court granted leave to the father to move for reconsideration of the March 3, 1995 order denying his 1993 motion for a reduction of support. Mother contends that the trial court erred by entering an order granting reconsideration of the March 3 order when it became final, under Rule 1:1, twenty-one days after its entry, which was March 24, 1995.
The record does not contain either a motion to reconsider or a ruling by the trial Judge on a motion to reconsider. Therefore, whether or not the trial Judge had jurisdiction to grant leave to the father to file a motion to reconsider, no further action occurred. Thus, the appeal raises no justiciable contro
Page 1 2 3 4 Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|