COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

FRED W. GRICE 

v. Record No. 1939-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

LINDA D. GRICE JUNE 6, 1995 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF MARTINSVILLE 

B. A. Davis, III, Judge Designate 

 (John L. Gregory, III; Young, Haskins, Mann & Gregory, 

on brief), for appellant. 

 (Thomas N. Key; Neil E. McNally; Key & Tatel, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Fred W. Grice (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court interpreting the Property Settlement Agreement (Agreement) 

husband signed with Linda D. Grice (wife). Husband contends the 

Agreement allowed husband to reduce his child support payments by 

one-half when the parties' son moved out of wife's home and into 

his home. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, 

we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 "Property settlement and support agreements are subject to 

the same rules of construction and interpretation applicable to 

contracts generally." Fry v. Schwarting, 4 Va. App. 173, 180, 

355 S.E.2d 342, 346 (1987). "[O]n appeal if all the evidence 

which is necessary to construe a contract was presented to the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

trial court and is before the reviewing court, the meaning and 

effect of the contract is a question of law which can readily be 

ascertained by this court." Id. 

 The Agreement was executed on July 11, 1989 and incorporated 

into the final decree of divorce entered on March 2, 1990. The 

Agreement provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 

 Husband agrees to pay to Wife, to be 

confirmed by the Court as a unitary award for 

support, the sum of Seven Hundred Dollars 

($700.00) per month . . . with said sum 

increasing to Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) 

per month beginning in July, 1990. Said sum 

will be reduced by the sum of Two Hundred 

Dollars ($200.00) as each child attains the 

age of 18 years, dies, marries, leaves Wife's 

home or otherwise becomes emancipated, 

whichever event first occurs. 

By subsequent order entered April 4, 1991, the amount of child 

support was changed to $600 per month. No corresponding 

amendment was made to the Agreement, and all previous orders not 

specifically modified remain in full effect. 

 The trial court reviewed the parties' Agreement and 

concluded: 

 The agreement was specific as to the amount 

of reduction, there being no ambiguity, and I 

find that the reduction is limited to 

$200.00. A Court cannot change that which 

the parties agreed to absent fraud or duress. 

 If their intent was other than that stated, 

it should have been set forth in clear 

concise language. 

 We agree with the trial court's interpretation. Nowhere in 

the language of the Agreement is there a reference to a one-half 

reduction in child support when a child became emancipated or 
 3 

otherwise left wife's home. Instead, the parties agreed, as 

evidenced by the unambiguous language of the Agreement, to a $200 

reduction in child support upon any of a series of events. 

 It is the function of the court to construe 

the contract made by the parties, not to make 

a contract for them. The question for the 

court is what did the parties agree to as 

evidenced by their contract. The guiding 

light in the construction of a contract is 

the intention of the parties as expressed by 

them in the words they have used, and courts 

are bound to say that the parties intended 

what the written instrument plainly declares. 

Hederick v. Hederick, 3 Va. App. 452, 455-56, 350 S.E.2d 526, 528 

(1986) (citation omitted). 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.