Domestic Relations – Marital Estate – Post-Nuptial Agreements

In this ongoing litigation since the parties divorced in 1999, wife’s present appeal contains procedural deficiencies and presents numerous questions that were not supported by law or evidence, and the Court of Appeals holds that husband is entitled to attorney’s fees for the appeal and the fee hearing on remand, as well as reasonable collection costs.

In an earlier decision in this ongoing litigation between the parties, Rahnema III, this court determined the trial court had abused its discretion by refusing to admit evidence of pre-separation transfers of marital funds to wife by husband, and remanded the case to allow husband to present his evidence of wife’s wrongdoing. Pursuant to this specific mandate, the trial court on remand heard evidence regarding the transfer of over $600,000 of marital funds to the sole dominion and control of wife. The court concluded wife had failed to account for $351,422 and determined that sum was marital property subject to division according to the terms of the agreement.

Wife had the responsibility to provide this court with an adequate record of the trial proceedings to enable the court to reasonably understand the nature of the appeal and the underlying facts upon which the appeal is based. Wife has failed to provide us with an adequate record to enable us to address the issue she raises. Because the record contains no transcripts or written statement of facts that is essential to the resolution of this issue, we will not decide the issue.

We find wife’s case presented numerous questions that were not supported by law or evidence. Therefore, we award attorney’s fees to husband and remand this case to the trial court to determine an appropriate award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this appeal, including any attorney’s fees and costs incurred at the remand hearing, and any reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of collection if necessary.

Affirmed and remanded.

Rahnema v. Rahnema (Per Curiam) No. 2701-07-1, June 10, 2008; Va. Beach Cir.Ct. (Lowe) Shahla Rahbari, pro se; James R. Cottrell for appellee. VLW 008-7-278(UP), 7 pp.