Virginia Divorce Law
If you have questions about Virginia divorce law, including spousal support, child support, asset distribution, marital property, community property, separate property, duration of the marriage, grounds for divorce, irreconcilable differences, you need to speak with a knowledgeable, competent Virginia divorce attorney who concentrates in Virginia family law. To assist you, Goldpage.org presents the following Virginia divorce lawyer.
Virginia Divorce Lawyer
Phone:
Website: (link)
The firm concentrates in Virginia divorce law and family law issues, including separation agreements, collaborative divorce, contested divorce, protective orders, spousal support, marital property distribution, child custody, child support, child visitation and all other issues relating to Virginia family law practice.
A skilled Virginia divorce attorney from the firm will meet with you to discuss your needs and goals.
Every case is different and needs to be independently evaluated by a skilled Virginia attorney. Call the office today to set an appointment.
Get the peace of mind you need. Get the experience and dedication you can trust.
The above listed law firm is an example of listing placement. To list on this newly released site, click here to reserve your spot.
Unlike other companies, advertising with Goldpage.org is virtually risk free, inasmuch as we develop the site with key search phrases prior to accepting business placements.
With Goldpage.org, you know in advance where you will come up in a key word search.
If you are a Virginia lawyer concentrating in family law and divorce, you cannot go wrong listing on a site targeted with key words relevant to your practice.
This is a new website developed and optimized by Goldpage.org. This site is now available for exclusive advertising. To reserve your spot or the entire page, click here for details. Goldpage.org is the gold standard in Internet business listings.
Unlike other companies, we acquire Google page rankings first, and then make our services available. Google is the giant in Internet search engines and research shows that most people prefer to use Google direct searches over Internet directories.
According to Google's statistics, the search phrase, "Virginia divorce," was used 27,100 times in January 2010 in the Google search engine alone! That is the most popular search term for Virginia divorce attorneys by far!
Nothing on this site is to be construed as legal advice. Please contact an attorney for a consultation to receive confidential legal advice with respect to your specific case. Goldpage.org makes no representations whatsoever as to the contents of this page or of the pages linked. When searching for a Virginia divorce lawyer make certain to speak with the respective lawyer in person, if possible, or by phone consultation.
This site was developed, programmed and optimized by Goldpage.org. Business owners: To list with Goldpage.org click here for opportunities.
Copyright 2010 Goldpage.org. All rights reserved.
Lawyers: See the information below to reserve this site for advertising exclusively!
Lawyers and legal advice
By Josh Martin
When searching for a Virginia divorce attorney please keep in mind that statutes of limitation may govern causes of action. A competent Virginia lawyer may advise on the time limits associated with your particular claim.
The words “lawyer” and “attorney” are synonymous and people use them interchangeably. To say that only a licensed attorney may provide legal advice is the same as saying that only a licensed lawyer can provide legal advice.
If you have a potential legal claim only a licensed attorney may advise you on the legal merits of your case.
When seeking advice from a Virginia divorce lawyer it is advisable to find an attorney with experience in the area related to Virginia family law, divorce, alimony, support and other family law areas.
For example, if you are charged with a criminal offense in Richmond, VA, of course you should seek the counsel of a Richmond attorney or a lawyer licensed in Virginia from another city. Additionally, however, it is important to receive the legal counsel of an attorney having actual court experience handing cases similar to yours.
If you have a potential personal injury claim, competent Maryland lawyers with experience in injury law can advise you on the statute of limitations and on the merits of your claim.
If it is a family law or divorce matter for which you seek legal counsel, Virginia lawyers who have experience in the local family courts most often are better suited to provide the legal advice you need as opposed to, say, patent attorneys.
Though some lawyers are “general practitioners” and practice many different types of law, you should always inquire into their actual experience in the specific area for which you seek legal counse
Copyright 2010 by Goldpage.org. All rights reserved.
The following is an interesting opinion from the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank
ALAN RICHARD STEWART
MEMORANDUM OPINION*v.Record No. 1483-98-2PER CURIAM
Record No. 1483-98-2PER CURIAM MAY 18, 1999PHYLLA JEAN STEWART
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
William R. Shelton, Judge
(Carol A. N. Breit; John A. Gibney; Shuford, Rubin & Gibney, on brief), for appellant.
(Thomas W. Blue, on brief), for appellee.
Alan Richard Stewart (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit court granting Phylla Jean Stewart (wife) a divorce and deciding other issues. Husband raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court denied him due process; (2) whether he received proper notice; (3) whether the trial court erred in finding him in default; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying him the opportunity to appear, present evidence, and defend the case; (5) whether there was proper service and return on service; (6) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the ground of divorce; (7) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the financial award against husband; and (8) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant the relief awarded. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.The parties were married in Henrico County on April 1, 1995, and last lived together in Chesterfield County. Wife commenced this action by filing a bill of complaint in Chesterfield County on November 30, 1995, alleging that husband abandoned her on November 24, 1995. Husband was personally served with the subpoena in chancery and bill of complaint in Minnesota on June 24, 1996. Husband commenced an action in Minnesota, serving wife on May 3, 1996. The Minnesota action was dismissed on March 19, 1997. By letter dated January 31, 1997, husband's Minnesota counsel contacted the trial judge, referenced the pending Virginia divorce action, and stated that "[i]t is our belief that our service was completed before the service of this matter in the State of Virginia." Husband filed no further pleadings in the Virginia action prior to entry of the final decree on October 8, 1997. On October 8, 1997, wife's counsel received a request for discovery from husband's Virginia counsel. Husband filed a motion to vacate, which was granted on October 29, 1997, to allow the parties to brief the adequacy of notice received by husband. By order entered January 14, 1998, the trial court ruled that husband received adequate notice and that the court had jurisdiction over husband. The court entered the final decree on June 8, 1998.Due Process and Sufficiency of Service
Questions Presented One through Five and Eight arise from a single underlying issue concerning the sufficiency of the process served upon him so that he received due process and a chance to defend himself in the divorce proceedings. We find husband's contentions to be without merit.Under Code § 8.01-328.1(A)(9), the Chesterfield County circuit court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over husband. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person's:
* * * * * * *
9. Having maintained within this Commonwealth a matrimonial domicile at the time of separation of the parties upon which grounds for divorce or separate maintenance is based, or at the time a cause of action arose for divorce or separate maintenance or at the time of commencement of such suit, if the other party to the matrimonial relationship resides herein. Jurisdiction in subdivision 9 of this subsection is valid only upon proof of service of process pursuant to § 8.01-296 on the nonresident party by a person authorized under the provisions of § 8.01-320.Id. Wife established that husband was served with process in accordance with the provisions of Code §§ 8.01-296 and 8.01 320. "When the court can exercise jurisdiction over the nonresident pursuant to § 8.01 328.1, such service shall have the same effect as personal service on the nonresident within Virginia." Code § 8.01 320. Upon service of process, husband was required to file a responsive pleading in the Virginia action or suffer the consequences of default.
The person so served shall be in default upon his failure to file a pleading in response to original process within twenty one days after such service. If no responsive pleading is filed within the time allowed by law, the case may proceed without service of any additional pleadings, including the notice of the taking of depositions. Id.
Both Emrich v. Emrich, 9 Va. App. 288, 387 S.E.2d 274 (1989), and Mackey v. Mackey, 203 Va. 526, 125 S.E.2d 194 (1962), cited by husband as authority for his contention that the trial court abused its discretion, are factually distinguishable. In Emrich, the wife failed to file a timely response to the bill of complaint because the parties resumed cohabitation and the husband fraudulently induced her not to answer by indicating he would seek to have the case dismissed. We found that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the wife's motion for an extension of time to answer and entered a decree of divorce within two months of the filing of the bill of complaint, notwithstanding evidence refuting the husband's proffered grounds for divorce. See Emrich, 9 Va. App. at 295, 387 S.E.2d at 277. In Mackey, unlike the case here, the defendant answered the complaint, but then was not provided with accurate notice of the taking of the deposition subsequently relied upon as the basis for the divorce. See Mackey, 203 Va. at 527 28, 125 S.E.2d at 195 96. Both cases are inapposite to the circumstances here where husband was properly served but failed without good cause to respond to the ongoing action. Trial courts may properly refuse an extension where the delay is due to negligence or carelessness on the part of a party. Inadvertence or failure to exercise due diligence under the circumstances in responding to legal process does not constitute a reasonable or legal excuse for failure to comply with filing requirements. Emrich, 9 Va. App. at 293, 387 S.E.2d at 276 (citation omitted). Husband filed no response to the June 1996 service of process. He was aware of the ongoing Virginia proceeding, as demonstrated by the January 1997 letter from his Minnesota counsel to the Virginia trial judge. Even after the dismissal of the Minnesota litigation in March 1997, husband filed no response in the Virginia action. The final decree of divorce was entered almost two years after the filing of wife's bill of complaint, more than one year after the service of process on husband, and more than six months after the dismissal of the Minnesota proceeding. Wife complied with the statutory requirements and obtained personal jurisdiction over husband. Husband received notice and an opportunity to be heard, which is the essence of due process. "An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 15 (1950). When husband elected not to respond to the ongoing action, he was in default. Wife was not required to provide him with further notice. See Code § 8.01-320.
Husband filed no response to the June 1996 service of process. He was aware of the ongoing Virginia proceeding, as demonstrated by the January 1997 letter from his Minnesota counsel to the Virginia trial judge. Even after the dismissal of the Minnesota litigation in March 1997, husband filed no response in the Virginia action. The final decree of divorce was entered almost two years after the filing of wife's bill of complaint, more than one year after the service of process on husband, and more than six months after the dismissal of the Minnesota proceeding. Wife complied with the statutory requirements and obtained personal jurisdiction over husband. Husband received notice and an opportunity to be heard, which is the essence of due process. "An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 15 (1950). When husband elected not to respond to the ongoing action, he was in default. Wife was not required to provide him with further notice. See Code § 8.01-320.Sufficient Evidence of the Ground of Divorce Evidence of the ground for the divorce was presented by deposition. On appeal, husband challenges the sufficiency of this evidence. "'The rule is firmly established in Virginia that a divorce decree based solely on depositions is not as conclusive on appellate review as one based upon evidence heard ore tenus, but such a decree is presumed correct and will not be overturned if supported by substantial, competent and credible evidence.'" Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 127, 341 S.E.2d 827, 828 (1986) (citation omitted). See also Code § 20 99(1). Wife presented her own deposition and the corroborating deposition of Mildred Settle to establish her alleged ground of desertion. "The question of corroboration is one of fact, the decision of which in each case depends upon the particular facts of that particular case. It is not necessary that the testimony of the complaining spouse be corroborated on every element or essential charge stated as a ground for divorce. The corroborative testimony need not be sufficient, standing alone, to prove the alleged ground for divorce. Any other rule would deprive the testimony of the complaining spouse of any practical effect. The general rule is that where a particular fact or circumstance is vital to complainant's case, some evidence of the same, in addition to the complainant's own testimony, is essential. The main object of the provision of the statute requiring corroboration is to prevent collusion. Where it is apparent that there is no collusion, the corroboration needs to be only slight."Dodge v. Dodge, 2 Va. App. 238, 245, 343 S.E.2d 363, 367 (1986) (emphasis and citations omitted).
The trial court found wife's evidence credible. Wife provided sufficient corroboration. Collusion was not a concern. Husband has failed to demonstrate grounds to overturn the decree which is presumed to be correct. Financial Award
Husband also contends that the evidence did not support a financial award against him. Because husband received adequate notice, his argument to strike the evidence submitted by deposition is without merit. Wife presented evidence to support her claim that husband’s actions leading to the dissolution of the marriage cost her $43,381.53 and that she incurred $8,006.50 in attorney’s fees and costs. We find no error in the trial court’s lump sum award to wife pursuant to Code § 20 107.3(D), and its award of her attorney’s fees and costs.Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed.Affirmed.
Goldpage.org
Premier Businesses
