Although an incarcerated husband claims deficiencies in notice to him and problems with the guardian ad litem who represented him should allow him to overturn a court order requiring him to pay wife $13,000 in arrears for her share of his military retired pay, the Court of Appeals upholds the trial court order.
The first five issues of this appeal are the same issues previously presented to this court in husband’s 2008 appeal. Also, the last issue on appeal relates back to the final decree and husband’s criminal conviction in 2005.
Res judicata applies in this case. In husband’s first appeal to this court, he listed numerous arguments stemming from the trial court’s entry of the final decree. However, we summarily affirmed that appeal due to husband’s failure to file a transcript or written statement of facts, which was indispensable to the determination of issues on appeal. Husband also previously appealed his criminal conviction, and we denied the petition for appeal. Thus, any attempt by husband to relitigate these issues that were raised or could have been raised in his prior appeals is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Husband argues the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of contempt and sufficient to find wife guilty of contempt. The trial court held the show cause hearing on Oct. 19, 2009. A court reporter was present, but no transcript was timely filed. We conclude a transcript or written statement of facts is indispensable to a determination of these questions presented on appeal. We affirm the trial court findings of contempt.
Further, the trial court did not err in finding husband guilty of contempt even though he paid the $13,000 by the Jan. 1, 2010 deadline because the order to pay the arrearage did not contain a purge clause.
Jackson v. Jackson (Per Curiam) No. 2481-09-4, June 1, 2010; Stafford County Cir.Ct. (Sharp) Gino V. Jackson pro se. VLW 010-7-218(UP), 10 pp.