Husband, an active member of the United States Navy, executed, after separation from his wife, a survivor's benefit plan election certificate, providing a deferred annuity for wife and children. The husband had three options, no participation for the wife, an immediate annuity, or a deferred annuity.
JUDY LYNN HECK MONAHAN v. LAWRENCE KEITH MONAHAN
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
September 11, 2001, Decided
Facts:
Husband, an active member of the United States Navy, executed, after separation from his wife, a survivor's benefit plan election certificate, providing a deferred annuity for wife and children. The husband had three options, no participation for the wife, an immediate annuity, or a deferred annuity. In electing to provide the wife the deferred annuity benefit, the husband selected to base her level of coverage on his full monthly retired pay. The parties executed a postnuptial agreement which embodied a mediation agreement. In the postnuptial agreement, each party agreed to waive all interests in any other real or personal property, and retirement benefits. In the decree of divorce, the trial court expressly made a part of the decree the postnuptial and mediation agreements. The trial court declined to award wife a portion of the monthly disposable Navy retirement benefits of husband in marital dissolution case. The wife appealed from the order.
Issue:
Discussion:
The Court states that in the postnuptial agreement, which incorporated the mediation agreement, the provisions for division of the parties' property were set forth in separate, identified paragraphs. Paragraph 2.7, entitled "Retirement Accounts/Assets," provided that, "as divided by the Mediation Agreement, each party agrees to waive all interests in any other . . . retirement benefits." It then provided that husband was entitled to benefits under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan and that, under that plan, wife was entitled to medical care benefits and a deferred annuity benefit based on husband's full monthly retired pay. The final sentence of paragraph 2.7 obligated the parties to execute "the Qualified Domestic Relations Order" for wife's entitlement to the Navy benefits. (Emphasis added). In addition to the waiver of all interests in other retirement benefits set forth in paragraph 2.7, other paragraphs of the postnuptial agreement stated that all matters in dispute had been settled with a mutual release of claim to other marital property. Hence this court concludes that the contract is not ambiguous. Accordingly this court held that the trial court did not err in its interpretation of the parties' postnuptial agreement and that the agreement, incorporated in the divorce decree, was an adjudication of all equitable rights of the parties in their marital property, including wife's entitlement to husband's Navy retirement benefits.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Virginia Mediation Settlement Agreement Lawyers Attorneys
The parties were married on October 13, 1995, and that they separated on or about February 27, 1997. The parties entered into a mediation settlement agreement on January 14, 1998, and upon due notice to wife, depositions were taken of husband and his corroborating witness on April 16, 1998. Plaintiff wife filed for divorce from defendant husband.
New York Divorce Jurisdiction Equitable Distribution Spousal Support Lawyers Attorneys
The parties were married in Ecuador in 1963. They have six emancipated children. Neither of the parties speaks or reads English with any degree of facility. Throughout their marriage, plaintiff-husband supported his wife and children. He works as a building porter, and his gross weekly salary as of December 1995 was $ 538.74. Plaintiff is also a member of a union that provided him with an attorney in this divorce proceeding.
New York Nassau County Divorce Agreement Division Of Property Lawyers Attorneys
Prior to commencement of an action for divorce, the parties entered an agreement for the division of their property that expressly provided that the agreement would not be modified by or merged into any divorce judgment. The agreement was challenged by the husband and upheld. The wife was later granted her counterclaim for divorce.
