COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Huff, Raphael and Lorish PUBLISHED Argued at Arlington, Virginia ARASTOO YAZDANI OPINION BY v. Record No. 1346-21-4 JUDGE LISA M. LORISH DECEMBER 13, 2022 SORAYA SAZEGAR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Lisa Bondareff Kemler, Judge Adam Fleming for appellant. Brandy M. Poss (Barnes & Diehl, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Arastoo Yazdani (husband) and Soraya Sazegar (wife) entered into a marital separation agreement (“Agreement”) resolving the issues in their pending divorce and agreeing to “reserve the issue of Wife’s request for . . . attorney[] fees . . . for arguments to be heard by the Alexandria City Circuit Court” and “to follow the ruling of the Court upon the Court making its determination regarding” attorney fees. Husband now appeals the attorney fee award. As the Agreement’s language did not clearly and unambiguously waive husband’s right to appeal, we consider whether the attorney fee award was reasonable, readily conclude it was, and then grant wife’s request for more attorney fees for the expenses she incurred in defending this meritless appeal. BACKGROUND The only issue here is the court’s attorney fee award. To evaluate the reasonableness of the award, we briefly review the history between the parties. Wife was visiting the United States on a tourist visa when she met husband on an online dating service. The two dated for a short time and then married in November 2018. Eighteen months later, wife discovered that husband was receiving messages from the same dating service, introducing him to other active users on the site. After wife confronted him, husband tried to terminate the lease on the marital residence, asking wife to sign a notice to vacate form that cited “separation from spouse” as the reason for leaving the home. Wife refused to sign, and husband left the marital residence. Wife then filed for divorce on grounds of desertion in July 2020. Husband answered with a counterclaim, alleging in part that wife’s “cruelty and emotional abuse” justified his departure from the marital home. Four months after these initial filings, wife could no longer afford legal counsel, so her attorney had to withdraw from representing her any further on the divorce. About eight months later, however, wife borrowed $18,000 from her daughter so she could again retain her prior lawyer to assist with preparations for trial set for November 2021. Upon being re-hired, wife’s counsel issued discovery requests including interrogatories and requests for production in August 2021. Husband responded to wife’s counsel on the day discovery was due, writing “I understand that the date to respond to your Discovery Request is today” and “I will consult my attorney . . . to provide a response.” Wife, through counsel, provided husband another six days to comply with the discovery requests, but husband again failed to comply. Three days following the extended deadline, husband continued to claim that his attorney would contact wife’s counsel soon. Wife’s counsel never heard from any attorney. Wife’s counsel then …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals