Opinion ID: 2757538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Increase in Value of Raymond James Account

Text: [¶14] Paragraph 10 discusses two groups of accounts—one group whose value is to be “equally divided,” and one group whose value is divided in some other manner. Any increase in value in the second group of accounts occurring before the actual division is to be divided “in the same proportion as specified 9 herein.” Contrary to Bonner’s assertion, the paragraph’s language cannot be read to require that, with regard to those accounts that were not to be divided equally, any increase in value should be divided equally. [¶15] The plain language of paragraph 10 requires that the increased value of the Raymond James account at issue in the parties’ cross motions for enforcement be divided between the parties in the ratio stated in the judgment: thirty-one percent to Bonner and sixty-nine percent to Emerson. Because the language is unambiguous, the court was required to enforce its plain meaning. It erred in doing otherwise and, therefore, we vacate the amended judgment on this ground and remand for the court to reconsider the parties’ post-judgment motions relating to paragraph 10 of the 2013 divorce judgment.