Opinion ID: 859699
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶8. This Court will not disturb the chancellor's opinion when supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or an erroneous legal standard was applied. Mount v. Mount, 624 So. 2d 1001, 1004 (Miss. 1993); Bowers Window and Door Co., Inc. v. Dearman, 549 So. 2d 1309 (Miss. 1989)(citing Bullard v. Morris, 547 So. 2d 789, 791 (Miss. 1989); Gibson v. Manuel, 534 So. 2d 199, 204 (Miss. 1988); Johnson v. Hinds County, 524 So. 2d 947, 956 (Miss. 1988); Bell v. City of Bay St. Louis, 467 So. 2d 657, 661 (Miss. 1985); Culbreath v. Johnson, 427 So. 2d 705, 707-708 (Miss. 1983). DISCUSSION OF LAW ¶9. The crux of this case is the interpretation of two paragraphs found in the separation agreement. The text of paragraph VI(1)(d) of the agreement provides that: The husband will pay unto his Wife, or will provide, that his employer or retirement benefits program administrator will pay unto said Wife, one-half (1/2) of his monthly retirement benefits that have acrued as of the date of this agreement and will hereafter accrue until retirement, upon the retirement of the Husband from Union Camp Corporation, his employer, or any successor employer, said one-half (1/2) of retirement payment to be made monthly and to continue until his wife remairries, or dies, whichever occurs first. The Husband further agrees to continue to contribute to his retirement fund with his employer at the same level he has contributed for the past twelve (12) months prior to the execution of this agreement. The Husband also agrees to furnish documentation to the Wife of his annual statement of earnings with said retirement account of Union Camp Corportation, or successor employer, and hereby further authorizes his employer and/or his employer's retirement fund to give acces to the Wife of any and all information concerning said retirement fund account and to execute any documents necessary to properly vest the Wife's interest in said retirement fund. . . . ¶10. The text of paragraph VI(1)(e) of the agreement provides: The Husband will also pay to the Wife one-half (1/2) of any and all retirement funds of any description, as they become available at retirement, to include individual retirement accounts (I.R.A.). Husband agrees to furnish Wife documentation concerning any of these accounts. . . . ¶11. Joan argues that Ronald failed to provide information concerning the Savings and Investment Plan, a 401-K account, and that the paragraphs above cover such an account. She maintains Ronald is required to convey to her one-half interest in this account at retirement. ¶12. The Holloman's intent in the execution of the property settlement agreement was to insure Joan's continuous alimony upon Ronald's retirement. From a complete reading of the settlement agreement, it would be difficult not to say that the intentions of the parties was to provide for permanent support and maintenance for Joan, whether Ronald was employed or retired. This Court, in Cherry v. Anthony, Gibbs, Sage, 501 So. 2d 416, 419 (Miss. 1987), stated, It has long been the law in Mississippi that in construing particular provisions in a contract, a court will look to the document as a whole. Id. Here, the Hollomans have expressed their clear intent from a fair reading of the settlement agreement as a whole. Examination of the two paragraphs in question and the specific words utilized therein, clearly show the intent to be that Joan receive one-half of Ronald's retirement benefits, whether in one account or more, and regardless of the name attached to the account. This Court, in Newell v. Hinton, 556 So. 2d 1037 (Miss. 1990), citing Roberts v. Roberts, 381 So. 2d 1333, 1335 (Miss. 1980), stated: Intent of the parties is crucial in contract interpretation. Of course, it must be understood that the words employed in a contract are by far the best resource for ascertaining intent and assigning meaning with fairness and accuracy. Newell, 556 So. 2d at 1042. ¶13. According to paragraph VI. 1. d. of the property settlement agreement, Ronald's employer's savings and investment plan constituted a retirement benefit. By any stretch of the imagination, the plan was a retirement fund of which Ronald had promised to pay one half of any and all retirement funds of any description, as they become available at retirement. . . . as contemplated by paragraph VI. 1. e. This Court finds that this one phrase, of any description alone is broad enough and sufficient to include the retirement 401-K savings plan. The chancellor erred in not finding that the Savings and Investment Plan was a retirement fund under this phrase from paragraph VI.1.e. of the property settlement agreement. ¶14. Joan attempted within two months of the divorce to establish her rights to Ronald's retirements accounts. She was advised that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was necessary. Ronald only advised her of Union Camp Corporation, his employer's, retirement income plan. The QDRO was accordingly prepared, submitted to the lower court and executed on May 3, 1992. ¶15. Subsequent to the entry of the court's order, Joan discovered the plan did not contain all of Ronald's total assets accumulated toward retirement during the marriage. In fact, only $16,000 was contained in the retirement plan about which Ronald had actually told Joan. However, unbeknownst to Joan, Ronald also had a 401-K account called a Savings and Investment Plan. This account had a value of $209,000 at the end of 1993. The settlement agreement clearly covered this plan. Ronald's withholding of this vital information was in direct contradiction of the agreement. Joan's attempt to have a revised QDRO order entered incorporating the 401-K plan in conformity with the settlement agreement was opposed by Ronald. The chancellor found that Joan's request for modification failed for want of specificity and denied her requested relief. ¶16. The chancellor found that the disputed retirement fund was not referred to by that name by the administering company, but rather, the company referred to it as a savings and investment plan. Such reliance upon the mere name of the account is obviously misplaced. This Court must look to the document as a whole, examining the nature of the account, its purpose and use, as being more important as a determining factor of whether the account actually is a retirement account. Ronald's employer's description of the plan clearly indicated that the purpose of the plan was to encourage investment for retirement. Additionally, Joan's expert witness, Eddie Powell, an attorney with a master's degree in taxation, testified that the savings plan was a retirement account under federal law. He testified that there are two types of employee benefits, welfare and pension. Pension benefits concern payments that an employee accrues and receives at retirement. He further testified that there are two basic types of plans, benefit plans and defined contribution plans, the former funded solely by the employer and the latter including employee contributions. ¶17. ERISA explains what kind of plan the savings and investment plan is under federal law. A defined contribution plan is a pension plan which provides for an individual account for each participant and for benefits based solely upon the amount contributed to the participant's account, any income, expenses, gains and losses, and any forfeitures of accounts of other participants which may be allocated to such participant's account. Powell testified that Ronald's savings and investment plan was a defined contribution plan as defined by ERISA. Ronald offered no proof regarding specifics of what a retirement account consists. The chancellor was thus required to rely on Joan's sole expert testimony. ¶18. Union Camp Corporation's own literature in explaining the Savings and Investment Plan, stated, The government permits before tax savings to encourage you to put money aside for retirement. Retirement was lited as the first reason for taking a payout of the benefits. ¶19. Ronald even answered in discovery that he used the savings plan to defer income for retirement purposes, though admittedly he claimed it was not his sole purpose. The admission by Ronald that he used the savings and investment plan for retirement purposes destroys his entire argument that such a plan is not a retirement plan. Ronald's admission alone warrants the reversal of this case, because it established that he did have a retirement purpose in the plan. ¶20. Ronald's Savings and Investment Plan was a retirement account by any definition of the term, including Ronald's own definition. The lack of the specific name of that account within the settlement agreement is of no consequence. The language of paragraph VI. 1.d. was clear that this account was contributing Ronald's earnings for deferment until retirement. When this Court considers all of this evidence, there can be no question that reversal is required. We hold that the chancellor erred in ruling that Joan's claim failed for lack of specificity in the settlement agreement. ¶21. This Court has recognized systematic contributions for a self-employed ERISA plan as a retirement plan enabling the chancellor to determine division of property. Draper v. Draper, 627