Kaufman, Jacob and Twardy: Costs, objections and transcripts in Virginia appeal cases

APPEALS.   Some of the confusion about the intricate rules that apply on appeal was perhaps alleviated by the Court’s opinion in Jacob v. Jacob,  6 VLW 1149 (1992).   As to the “damages” and costs payable by a losing party, the Court pointed out that there is a statute making it mandatory (§ 8.01-682), but that that is only in certain cases. Sometimes there is interest on them and sometimes not.  When the judgment on appeal is “not  for payment of any money, except costs,” then it is limited to $100.  Attorneys’ fees for this purpose do not constitute costs.

APPEALS--TRANSCRIPT REQUIREMENT--MALPRACTICE TRAP. Lawyers handling appeals found out in June with the announcement of  Twardy v. Twardy, VLW 66 (6/9/92) that if counsel signs a statement in the notice of appeal that a transcript will be furnished, then the appellant must furnish and file the entire  transcript.  Addressing an awkward mechanical  problem that has bedeviled appellees  on  occasion, the court explained that  the appellee has a right to rely on that statement  as an assurance that the appellee will find an entire transcript in the record from which to designate the parts appellee wants.

APPEALS.  The draconian rule of Lee v. Lee, 404 SE2d 736, was apparently fudged to some degree in Kaufman v. Kaufman,   6 VLW 349, where the appeal was allowed despite now-familiar types of procedural "defaults," but without any express acknowledgement that the Court was backing off from the Lee v. Lee  rule.  For those who have always wondered what happens to the money represented by an alimony award that is reversed on appeal, the question was answered in the second trip to the Court of Appeals of Reid v. Reid,    6 VLW 349.  When the husband sued to get his alimony back on remand, the Court of Appeals held that alimony once paid, even though under an invalid trial court decree, is forever lost and cannot be reclaimed.