Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the matter of the Marriage of
                                                 )         No. 66157-4-I
PADMAJA KRISHNA VENI CHILUVURI,                  )
                                                 )         DIVISION ONE
                      Respondent,                )
                                                 )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
              and                                )
                                                 )
MURALIDHARA VARMA CHILUVURI,                     )
                                                 )
                      Appellant.                           FILED: March 5, 2012
                                                 )
                                                 )
                                                 )

       Appelwick, J.  --  Varma appeals a final parenting plan and order of child 

support.  Because his brief on appeal does not comply with the rules of appellate 

procedure and fails, in any event, to state a basis for relief, we affirm.

                                        FACTS
       Varma and Padmaja Chiluvuri1 married in 1998 and divorced in 2006.  

The dissolution decree incorporated an agreed parenting plan concerning the 

parties' son,  H.C.   In May and December, 2008, the parties entered agreed 

parenting plans under which H.C. resides with Varma the majority of the time.  

       In 2010, Varma  filed a notice of intent to relocate to India with H.C.  

Padmaja initially  objected to relocation and to a proposed revised parenting 

plan.  By the time of trial, Varma and H.C. had relocated to India under the terms 

of a temporary order.  Padmaja then withdrew her objection to relocation and the 

parties proceeded to litigate other aspects of the parenting plan. 

       The trial court entered a new parenting plan and child support order. 

       1 Consistent with the briefing and the record, this opinion will refer to 
appellant as "Varma" and respondent as "Padmaja."   

No. 66157-4-I/2

Changes included a 50% reduction in Padmaja's child support obligation due to 

Varma's lower cost of living in India. Varma appeals. 

                                    DISCUSSION

       Our review is controlled by well-settled principles and procedural rules 

that apply equally to litigants represented by counsel and litigants proceeding
pro se.2  We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party 

and defer to the trial court regarding witness credibility and conflicting testimony. 

Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., 132 Wn. App. 546, 556, 132 P.3d 789 (2006), 

aff'd, 162 Wn.2d 340, 132 P.3d 789 (2006).  We only review findings to which 

error is assigned, and our review is limited to determining whether the findings 

are supported by substantial evidence.        Id. at 555-56.  We consider only the 

evidence that was before the trial court.    See RAP 9.1 through 9.11.  Arguments 

that are not  supported by pertinent authority, references to the record, or 
meaningful analysis     need not be considered.3          Finally, rulings  concerning

parenting plans and child support are reviewed for abuse of discretion.  In re 

Marriage of Christel, 101 Wn. App. 13, 20-21, 1 P.3d 600 (2000) (parenting 

plan); In re Marriage of Fiorito, 112 Wn. App. 657, 663, 50 P.3d 298 (2002)

(child support).  Such rulings will seldom be changed upon appeal because the 

       2 In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993).
       3 Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 
549 (1992) (arguments not supported by authority); State v. Elliott, 114 Wn.2d 6, 
15, 785 P.2d 440 (1990) (insufficient argument); Saunders v. Lloyd's of London, 
113 Wn.2d 330, 345, 779 P.2d 249 (1989) (issues unsupported by adequate 
argument and authority); State v. Camarillo, 54 Wn. App. 821, 829, 776 P.2d 
176 (1989) (no references to the record), aff'd, 115 Wn.2d 60, 794 P.2d 850 
(1990); RAP 10.3(a).

                                          - 2 - 

No. 66157-4-I/3

emotional and financial interests affected by such decisions are best served by 

finality.  See In re Marriage of Booth, 114 Wn.2d 772, 776, 791 P.2d 519 (1990); 

In re Parentage of Jannot, 149 Wn.2d 123, 127-28, 65 P.3d 664 (2003).

       Varma's brief fails to comply with a number of  citation  requirements.  

Despite this court's notice that his brief lacked references to the record, and 

despite being given both an opportunity to correct the brief and a clear warning 
that noncompliance could         preclude review,4      Varma's    brief contains     no 

references to the record.5      It also  contains  no  citations to authority and  no 

meaningful legal analysis.  With few exceptions, the nature of the alleged errors, 

the arguments, and the relief requested are unclear.  Taken together, these 

deficiencies in  Varma's brief  preclude review.  Nevertheless, to the extent 

possible, we have reviewed the  identifiable claims raised in the brief and 
conclude they lack merit.6  

       Varma  asserts that  his  "signatures were not even present to illustrate 

acceptance" of the final orders and that his counsel's signature was only "to 

illustrate the receiving of papers that was not authorized as acceptance."        To the 

       4 This court returned Varma's opening brief "for failure to comply with the 
Rules of Appellate Procedure."     We specifically noted that the brief contained no 
references to the record as required by RAP 10.3(a).  Varma declined to amend 
his brief and requested that we accept it.  We granted his request but warned 
that "[t]he panel that considers the appeal on the merits will determine whether 
to consider appellant's arguments despite appellant's failure to cite to the 
record."
       5 The record includes over 300 pages of trial proceedings and nearly 400 
pages of clerk's papers.
       6 Varma's motion to accept his tardy reply brief is denied, as this court 
previously denied his motion for an extension of time to file that brief.  His 
motions to supplement the record are granted, but only as to documents that 
were in the record before the trial court.  

                                          - 3 - 

No. 66157-4-I/4

extent Varma believes his signature was necessary for a valid final order, he is 

mistaken.  Once a party designates an attorney to represent him, the court and 

the parties are entitled to rely upon the attorney's authority until it is terminated.  

In re Marriage of Maxfield, 47 Wn. App. 699, 707 n.2, 737 P.2d 671 (1987).  To 

the extent Varma contends his counsel was not authorized to accept or agree to 

the orders, he misunderstands the nature of the orders              and the effect of 

counsel's signatures.  The orders at issue were not agreed orders.  Rather, they 

were orders of the court entered following trial.  Counsel's signatures on the 

orders did not signify any agreement or acceptance.  They merely acknowledged 

receipt of the orders and approved them only "as to form."

       Varma next contends he never received a final order formally permitting 

him to relocate with H.C. to India.  But, as noted above, relocation has occurred 

and was not contested at trial.  The court memorialized that fact in its September 

10, 2010, order from pretrial conference stating, "relocation not contested."

Nothing more is necessary.  See RCW 26.09.500(1) (if there is no objection 

following proper notice, "the relocation of the child shall be permitted); Final 

Parenting Plan, section 3.14 ("If no objection is filed . . . , the relocation will be 

permitted and the proposed revised residential schedule may be confirmed.").  

       Varma appears to claim the court erred in failing to enter written findings 

of fact.  While a trial court must make findings sufficient to support child support

orders and parenting plans, oral findings may be sufficient for review.            In re 

Marriage of Lawrence, 105 Wn. App. 683, 686, 20 P.3d 972 (2001); In re 

                                          - 4 - 

No. 66157-4-I/5

Marriage of Crosetto, 82 Wn.        App. 545, 560, 918 P.2d 954 (1996)             (child 

support).  Here, the findings in the court's oral opinion are sufficient to review the

issues on appeal. 

       Varma contends the proceedings below demonstrate "prejudice and 

discrimination" against him.  A trial court is presumed to perform its functions 

regularly and properly without bias or prejudice.  In re Marriage of Meredith, 148 

Wn. App. 887, 903, 201 P.3d 1056 (2009).  A party seeking to overcome this 

presumption must provide specific facts establishing bias.  In re Pers. Restraint 

of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647, 692, 101 P.3d 1 (2004).  Judicial rulings alone almost 

never constitute a valid showing of bias. Id.       Varma points to no facts in the 

record demonstrating that the court was prejudiced against him.    

       Varma also argues that the court erred in awarding Padmaja a federal 

income tax credit for their son.  Under RCW 26.19.100, the trial court may award 

the exemption and order a party to sign a federal income tax dependency 

exemption waiver.      The authority to allocate a tax exemption and modify an 

earlier allocation is based on the premise that a child's best interests are served 

when the parents'      financial situations are maximized.         In re Marriage of 

Peterson, 80 Wn. App. 148, 156, 906 P.2d 1009 (1995).  A trial court should 

allocate an exemption to the party who will benefit the most from it.         Id.  Here, 

the court awarded Padmaja the exemption "because she's paying 82 percent of 

the . . . child's expenses."  In addition, Padmaja lives and works in the United 

States, while Varma now lives and works in India.  The court's ruling was within 

                                          - 5 - 

No. 66157-4-I/6

its discretion.   

       Finally,  Varma appears to challenge the court's basis for a downward 

deviation as to Padmaja's child support obligation.  The court based the 

deviation on Varma's admission in his declaration that  "the cost of living [in 

India] is very low for food, entertainment, and other costs," including rent.  Varma 

fails to demonstrate that the deviation was an abuse of discretion.     

       Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

                                          - 6 -