COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Huff, Judges Beales and Decker Argued at Salem, Virginia UNPUBLISHED SHIRONG WU WIGLEY MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 0009-18-3 JUDGE RANDOLPH A. BEALES OCTOBER 30, 2018 RICHARD ALAN WIGLEY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY Clyde H. Perdue, Jr., Judge Shirong Wu Wigley, pro se. Ward L. Armstrong for appellee. Shirong Wu Wigley (“wife”) appeals from a final decree of divorce from the Circuit Court of Franklin County granting a divorce to Richard Alan Wigley (“husband”) and resolving issues of spousal support and equitable distribution. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in failing to award her additional spousal support, in failing to award her additional property in equitable distribution, and in failing to order husband to prepay her attorney’s fees in order to allow her to retain counsel for the litigation.1 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Wife’s native language is Mandarin Chinese, and she acted pro se before the trial court and in this appeal. An interpreter was physically present at oral argument before this Court in order to facilitate the arguments. We paraphrase and address wife’s assignments of error to the best of our ability. Wife’s verbatim assignments of error state: 1. First, the trial court was wrong to refuse spousal support according to I-864 affidavit -- a finance contract. 2. Second, it grant husband so calls equitable distribution marital assets, the distribution without an evidence support and base on I. BACKGROUND On appeal, we are required to view the facts in the light most favorable to husband because he was the prevailing party before the trial court. See Wright v. Wright, 61 Va. App. 432, 451, 737 S.E.2d 519, 528 (2013). The case before us contains no transcripts of the proceedings below. Therefore, our review is limited to the court-approved written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript (the “statement of facts” 2) and “other incidents of the case.”3 Rule 5A:8; see also Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993) (“An appellate court must dispose of the case upon the record and cannot base its decision upon appellant’s petition or brief, or statements of counsel in open court. We may act only upon facts contained in the record.”). So viewed, the evidence shows that husband met wife, a citizen of China, over the internet in 2011. They developed an online relationship. Husband then also made two trips to China to visit wife. In the spring of 2012, husband invited wife and her teenage daughter to the husband’ perjury, hides marital assets, ignored wife’s motion to discovery. 3. Finally, the trial court also erred in ignoring wife’s motion for attorney’s fee, husband control all marital property, wife live depended can not afford an attorney, her English limited, can not protect her right in the best way, or the appeal would not happen. 2 Wife filed a written statement of facts ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals