Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Va. App. 306

411 S.E.2d 229

8 Va.LawRep. 1448

Polumbo v. Polumbo

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided November 19, 1991

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of Virginia · decided 1991-11-19

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(1) Any final decision of a circuit court on appeal from (i) a decision of an administrative agency ... or (4) [a]ny interlocutory decree or order entered in any of the cases listed in this section (i) granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction or (ii) adjudicating the principles of a cause.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 45 Va. App. 723 - COM., DEPT. OF PROFESSIONAL v. Lancaster, 54 Va. App. 291 - Draghia v. Commonwealth

“In order to adjudicate the principles of a cause, a decree must decide an issue that “would of necessity affect the final order in the case.” Pinkard, 12 Va.App. at 851 , 407 S.E.2d at 341 . The decree must “determine the rules by which the court will determine the rights of the parties.” Id.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 13 Va. App. 681 - Webb v. Webb, 54 Va. App. 762 - Chaplain v. Chaplain

Relies on 12 Va. App. 848 - Pinkard v. Pinkard

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-11-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Canova Electrical Contracting, Inc. v. LMI Insurance (1996), 19 Va. App. 389 - Erikson v. Erikson (1994)

29 state decisions

170199120002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 Opinion

BARROW, J.

¶2 In this domestic relations appeal, we determine whether an interlocutory decree invalidating an antenuptial agreement is an appealable order. The decree was entered during the course of a divorce proceeding in which a final divorce decree has not yet been entered. We hold that the order is not appealable because it will not necessarily affect the final disposition of this case.

¶3 We have no jurisdiction over appeals except that granted us by statute. Pinkard v. Pinkard, 12 Va. App. 848, 851, 407 S.E.2d 339, 340 (1991). In a divorce proceeding, we may only review a “final judgment, order or decree” or an “interlocutory decree . . . (i) granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction or (ii) adjudicating principles of a cause.” Code §§ 17-116.05(3)(a) and (4); Pinkard, 12 Va. App. at 851, 407 S.E.2d at 340. The order entered in this case is not a final judgment order or decree, nor is it a decree granting, dissolving or denying an injunction; therefore, an appeal at this stage of the proceedings is proper only if the order adjudicated “the principles of a cause.”

¶4 In order to adjudicate the principles of a cause, a decree must decide an issue which “would of necessity affect the final order in the case.” Pinkard, 12 Va. App. at 851, 407 S.E.2d at 341. The decree must “determine the rules by which the court will determine the rights of the parties.” Id. It must “respond to the chief object of the suit which was to secure a divorce.” Id. at 852, 407 S.E.2d at 341-42 (emphasis added). However, “[t]he mere possibility” that an interlocutory decree “may affect the final decision in the trial does not necessitate an immediate appeal.” Id. at 853, 407 S.E.2d at 342.

¶5 In this case, the interlocutory order being appealed may affect the final decision but will not of necessity do so. The agreement, if not invalid, would bar the wife’s ability to recover spousal support *308 or a monetary award. By declaring the antenuptial agreement invalid, however, the trial court did not necessarily determine that the wife would receive an award for spousal support or a monetary award. It only determined that her right to do so would not be affected by the agreement. In the final disposition of this case, either by the grant or the denial of a decree of divorce, the wife may or may not receive an award of spousal support or a monetary award. A decision by this court at this stage of the proceeding would not preclude the trial court from denying the wife spousal support and a monetary award.

¶6 The order declaring invalid the antenuptial agreement denying the wife spousal support and a monetary award is, therefore, not appealable, and the appeal is dismissed.

¶7 Dismissed.

¶8 Bray, J., and Elder, J., concurred.

/13/vaapp/306 · .json · Public domain