Opinion ID: 1205638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: interpretation construction of the separation agreement

Text: Mr. Henderson challenges the family court's determination that his net earnings, at the time of the agreement, were $1,455.15 per month and contends that the court erred by refusing to allow him to present evidence that his net earnings were other than as set forth in the agreement. Questions relating to the construction, operation and effect of separation agreements are governed by the same general rules and provisions applicable to other contracts. Annot., 79 A.L.R. (2d) 612 (1961). With regard to monthly net earnings, the agreement states: The Husband shall pay to the Wife as alimony the sum of Three Hundred ($300.00) Dollars per month, commencing on the 1st day of January, 1980, and on the first day of each month thereafter. This rate of alimony is based upon monthly net earnings of the Husband as of the time of this agreement of One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Five and 15/100 ($1,455.15) Dollars per month. In the event at any time the net earnings of the husband is increased above the base amount of One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Five and 15/100 ($1,455.15) Dollars, the Husband agrees to pay to the Wife, in addition to the alimony above provided for, a sum equivalent to 40% of any increase in net earnings up to a total monthly alimony of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars. In the event monthly alimony reaches the sum of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars per month, the Husband agrees to pay to the Wife in addition to the Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars alimony per month, a sum equivalent to 20% of any increases up to a maximum monthly alimony of Twenty-Five Hundred ($2,500.00) Dollars. This provision makes clear that the parties intended the monthly net earnings figure of $1,455.15 to serve as the basis for Mr. Henderson's initial alimony payments of $300.00 per month. Further, subsequent increases in alimony payments were to be determined based upon increases in Mr. Henderson's income beyond $1,455.15. Plain and unambiguous language appearing in a written document may not be contradicted by the use of extrinsic evidence. Stanaland v. Jamison , 275 S.C. 50, 268 S.E. (2d) 578 (1980). This portion of the agreement is clear and unambiguous. The family court properly refused to allow evidence that Mr. Henderson's monthly net earnings were other than as set forth in the agreement. Ms. Henderson contends the family court erred by allowing deductions of income, self-employment and/ or FICA taxes from Mr. Henderson's gross income. The agreement specifies that Mr. Henderson's net earnings are to be determined by subtracting from his gross earnings all expenses incurred in the earning of the gross income which expenses are allowable deductions on the tax return of the husband filed with the Internal Revenue Service. According to the family court, net earnings are to be determined by subtracting the following from Mr. Henderson's gross income: (a) state and federal income taxes; (b) self-employment and/or FICA taxes; and (c) actual business expenses incurred by Mr. Henderson in earning gross income. When the language of a separation agreement is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the intention of the parties must be ascertained. Langston v. Niles , 265 S.C. 445, 219 S.E. (2d) 829 (1975). The family court allowed presentation of evidence by both parties regarding their intention of what constitutes expenses incurred. From the agreement's inception, Mr. Henderson deducted state and federal income taxes and self-employment and/or FICA taxes in calculating the net earnings upon which he based his alimony payments. Ms. Henderson never complained of these deductions until commencement of this action. The construction which the parties gave the agreement by their conduct and actions before any controversy arose as to the meaning of the agreement is entitled to great weight. 24 Am. Jur. (2d), Divorce And Separation , § 838 (1983). It is clear form the construction actually given by the parties prior to this controversy that deduction of income taxes and self-employment and/or FICA taxes was contemplated at the time of the agreement. Ms. Henderson also contends the family court committed error in computing alimony arrearages. According to Ms. Henderson, the court's deduction of income and FICA taxes from Mr. Henderson's gross income resulted in an improper determination of alimony arrearages. In view of the language of the agreement and the conduct of the parties, we hold that these deductions are proper. The family court did not err by awarding alimony arrearages computed after deductions of income, self-employment and/or FICA taxes from Mr. Henderson's gross income. We find no error in the family court's determinations and interpretations with regard to net earnings or arrearages due Ms. Henderson.