Father Must Pay Attorney’s Fee

Father Must Pay Attorney’s Fee

By Deborah Elkins
Published: January 5, 2012

Tags: Domestic Relations, Family Law Attorney, Per Curiam Opinion, Virginia Court of Appeals
 
The Court of Appeals affirms the circuit court’s award of child custody and $20,000 in attorney’s fees to mother; father released his counsel after being warned no continuance would be granted.

Husband and wife separated in 2007, after four years of marriage and one month after the birth of their child. Father filed for divorce in 2007. After numerous motions and several hearings, a final hearing was scheduled for May 2010; this hearing had to be continued to March 2011 due to father’s noncompliance with discovery. On the rescheduled hearing date, father’s counsel moved to withdraw; father requested to discharge his counsel and asked for a 30-day continuance. Father’s request was opposed by mother and the guardian ad litem as not in the child’s best interest. The trial court warned father no continuance would be granted if he released his counsel. Father released his counsel and represented himself at the hearing. The trial court awarded mother sole custody and ordered father to pay $20,000 in attorney’s fees. Mother documented fees exceeding $32,000. Father retained counsel after the hearing who filed motion to reconsider that resulted in adjusting the amount and start date of child support and extending the payment period for mother’s attorney’s fees from 12 to 24 months.

On appeal, father argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance and awarding $20,000 attorney’s fees to mother. We find no abuse of discretion in the circumstances of this case. The trial court instructed and explained to father several times to carefully consider his request to discharge his attorney because a continuance was not in the child’s best interests. Father’s counsel moved to withdraw based on “extraordinary circumstances” making him ineffective due to father’s refusal to communicate. We will not consider father’s new arguments about unique circumstances (his upbringing, religion and employment and unpreparedness), fair trial, due process and “family integrity.” Father failed to preserve these arguments by raising them in the trial court as required Rule 5A:18. We also will not consider father’s argument about his right to cross-examine and present evidence. Father cites no authority to support his argument as required by Rule 5A:20(e) and this noncompliance is significant; it is father’s burden to show reversible error. Father shows no abuse of discretion in the award of attorney’s fees to mother. Mother documented attorney’s fees exceeding the $20,000 awarded. The trial court considered the disparity in the parties’ income, the longevity and complexity of the case and commented that the attorney’s fees may be somewhat reflective of the nature of the parties involved. We decline mother’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.

Dajani v. Dajani (Per Curiam) No. 0905-11-2, Dec. 6, 2011; Spotsylvania Cir. Ct. (Beck) Ted Kavrukov for appellant; Kristie L. Kane for appellee; Jeannette B. Purvis, guardian ad litem. VLW 011-7-385(UP), 8 pp.