Court Opinion

ID: 9853629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:51:24.117738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:56.619924
License: Public Domain

Baker, J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the trial court erred when it entered an award of equitable distribution inconsistent with the settlement agreement which had been fully executed by the parties. However, I do not believe that the legislature intended to empower a trial judge to delay an award of equitable distribution beyond twenty-one days after a decree is entered which dissolves the marriage between the parties and, accordingly, I dissent from the majority opinion confirming such authority.
The subject matter that brought this cause before the court is divorce. All other matters pleaded were merely ancillary to that subject matter. Thus, I would hold that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an equitable distribution award as it did more than three months after the decree a vinculo matrimonii became final.
In its opinion, the majority states that as to jurisdiction the issue to be decided is whether the language of the statute (§ 20-107.3) compels the trial court to make its equitable distribution award at the same time the decree of divorce is entered. Subsequently the majority held that Code § 20-107.3 does not preclude a court from granting a divorce while making a clear and explicit reservation of jurisdiction over the issue of equitable distribution.
I do not see the jurisdictional issue to be whether the trial court is “compelled” by the language of Code § 20-107.3(A) to make its equitable distribution award at the same time, contemporane*131ously with, or following the entry of the decree dissolving the matrimonial bonds. Rather, I see the issue to be whether any language in Code § 20-107.3(A) extends the jurisdiction of the trial court beyond twenty-one days after entering a final divorce decree adjudicating the subject matter of the suit.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. The husband filed a divorce suit in which, inter alia, he asked for an award of equitable distribution. He did not file a suit for equitable distribution. The wife filed a cross bill for divorce (the subject matter) and requested ancillary awards for child and spousal support, costs, attorney’s fees and equitable distribution. Equitable distribution was a mere adjunct to the subject matter of this suit, as were the requests for child and spousal support, costs and attorney’s fees.
On July 27, 1984, the trial judge entered a decree adjudicating the subject matter. It was a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii completely dissolving the marriage between the parties. It was a final decree as contemplated by Rule 1:1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and was immediately appealable. The trial court could not alter the decree after the expiration of twenty-one days from its entry. No decree was entered vacating or modifying that decree within the twenty-one days prescribed in Rule 1:1, which provides:
All final judgments, orders, and decrees, irrespective of terms of court, shall remain under the control of the trial court and subject to be modified, vacated, or suspended for twenty-one days after the date of entry, and no longer, (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court of Virginia has required strict adherence to this rule. In Godfrey v. Williams, 217 Va. 845, 234 S.E.2d 301 (1977), the trial judge entered a judgment order for the plaintiff. On the twenty-first day thereafter, he entered an order “extending . . . the twenty-one day period established by Rule 1:1.” After the twenty-one days had passed, the trial court reversed its original finding in favor of the plaintiff and entered judgment for the defendant. The Supreme Court reversed that finding, reinstated the verdict for the plaintiff and held that the trial judge was not empowered to extend the time stated by the Rule. Id. at 846, 234 S.E.2d at 302. If the trial judge in the matter now pending is *132empowered to extend the twenty-one day limitation set forth in the rule, we must find the empowering language in Code § 20-107.3(A), or elsewhere. I find no such language.
In Harvey v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co., 198 Va. 213, 218, 93 S.E.2d 309, 313 (1956), the Court required an actual ruling within twenty-one days on any motion to modify or vacate a judgment order, and rejected an argument that the filing of such a motion extended the time. The Harvey case obviously declines to allow a party to control the finality of an order or decree. The Court noted that this attempt by a party to extend the time that a judgment becomes final “shows the necessity of strict compliances with the rule.” Id.
In Russell v. Russell, 50 Md. App. 185, 436 A.2d 524 (1981), the Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed a matter involving court and party attempts to extend the limitation time. In declining to permit extension of jurisdiction, the court said:
The question then arises as to whether or not the court had jurisdiction to make any determination concerning marital property. It is perfectly obvious that had the trial judge made this determination at the time he granted the divorce his action would have been binding. Instead, the judge reserved the issue of marital property extending his jurisdiction for the ninety day period allowed in section 3-6A-05(a). However, having failed to designate the marital property within this time, the court lost jurisdiction and any determination thereafter concerning the appellee’s pension rights were nugatory. The parties could not confer jurisdiction by consent where the jurisdiction did not exist under the appropriate law; this deficiency may be raised at any time, (emphasis added).
Id. at 187, 436 A.2d at 525.
Thus, neither the trial court nor the parties, jointly or severally, cari extend the twenty-one day period provided in Rule 1:1 once a final decree adjudicating the subject matter has been entered. Therefore, they cannot avoid the limitations period by requesting the trial court to provide in the final decree that a decision regarding equitable distribution shall be made at some future indefinite time beyond twenty-one days. See also In re Department of Corrections, 222 Va. 454, 463, 281 S.E.2d 857, 862 (1981), wherein *133the Court stated that an expression of a mere desire to consider a sentencing order at a time later than twenty-one days after entry of the final order was not sufficient to continue jurisdiction.
I believe this cause to be controlled by Rule 1:1 and the cases cited above. Citations to cases beyond Virginia merely disclose the concern of courts in states with similar equitable distribution statutes if bifurcated trials are permitted. See for example, Adam v. Stewart, 552 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977), which held that when the jurisdiction of the court is invoked by the pleadings of either spouse the court must decree a division of the property and the trial court may not sever the property division from the divorce action. In addition, the court illustrated a number of chaotic conditions which could result if severances were permitted after the decree of divorce had been entered. Id. at 538.
In Gojack v. Second Judicial District Court, 95 Nev. 443, 596 P.2d 237 (1979), the Supreme Court of Nevada was petitioned to construe a statute which provided that “in granting a divorce, the court . . . shall make disposition of the community property of the parties.” The Court interpreted the statute to mean that the decree of community property distribution must be made contemporaneously with the dissolution of the marriage, and specifically held that if this did not occur the trial court lost jurisdiction to make further rulings pertaining to the marital property. Gojack, 596 P.2d at 239. That court also made reference to some of the undesirable circumstances which could result if they permitted bifurcated hearings. Id. The observations of the Texas and Nevada Courts apply with equal reason and logic here.
In its opinion, the majority states that, “It is well settled that the General Assembly does not intend application of statutes to lead to irrational consequences.” I concur. See Adam v. Stewart and Gojack v. Second Judicial District Court, supra, for examples of “irrational consequences” which will result by granting the decree dissolving the marriage and reserving for some future unknown date the award of equitable distribution.
In a footnote, the majority says that its holding is not dependent upon the fact that the parties agreed to the reservation of jurisdiction. It cites Shaughnessy v. Shaughnessy, 1 Va. App. 136, _ S.E.2d _ (1985), and notes that the reservation of jurisdiction is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. But it does not say *134for how long. Can it be just for twenty days? Twenty months? Or for what period? Nor does it say whether an overruled objection made by one party would be an abuse of discretion, or must both parties object. And the opinion is silent as to when a party objecting but overruled would have a right to appeal. Would it be upon the entry of the decree reserving jurisdiction? If not, must a party wait an unspecified time to appeal? If so, at what time? What could an attorney tell his client when the right to appeal would come? Suppose there was a claimed error in the granting of the divorce itself, could that be appealed while the parties awaited the court’s exercise of its discretion as to the award of equitable jurisdiction? Do we now say that these are the rational consequences that were intended by the General Assembly? I think not.
Finally, the majority appears to hold that no statutory words to change Rule 1:1 are necessary because Brinn v. Brinn, 147 Va. 277, 137 S.E. 503 (1927); gives the trial court the “inherent power” to avoid the Rule. I disagree.
In Brinn, the trial court reserved the right in a divorce decree to modify alimony payments. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s action by recognizing inherent power in equity to modify future alimony payments even though there was no specific statute to permit modification after the decree became final. The limitation of that decision was made clear by the following statement:
The propriety of making such a reservation is so manifest, in order to meet the changed condition of parties and to attain the ends of justice, and is so consonant with the practice in other cases in chancery, that we are satisfied that the right to make such reservation is inherent in courts of chancery, (emphasis added).
Id. at 287, 137 S.E. at 506.
The considerations peculiar to alimony which constitute the basis of the Brinn decision are not present in the distribution of marital property under Code § 20-107.3(A). Marital property is a static concept, definite at the point in time that divorce a vinculo matrimonii is decreed. After the decree, the parties cannot acquire property together in such a way that its character is “marital.” Conversely, the necessity for and proper amount of spousal support is a dynamic concept. The needs of the parties and their *135financial abilities are ever subject to change. This consideration of changed conditions underlays the Brinn holding, a concept foreign to marital property distribution. I would not extend the inherent power of equity courts to reserve jurisdiction to meet changed conditions to the adjudication of equitable distribution where all conditions can be known at the time the final decree of divorce is entered.
As noted throughout this opinion, it is my judgment that Rule 1:1 bars the bifurcated hearings purportedly reserved by the terms of the November 13, 1984, decree entered herein. Definitions of words used in Code § 20-107.3(A) are significant only if they specifically except adherence to Rule 1:1. The clear intent of that rule is to enable a final decree or order to conclude the subject matter of the suit, and the ancillary issues raised therein. I find no meaning of words used in Code § 20-107.3(A) which avoids the mandate of Rule 1:1 and if Code § 20-107.3(A) does not contain language to alter the effect of Rule 1:1, jurisdiction is lost after twenty-one days following entry of the final divorce decree.
I am of opinion that after the expiration of twenty-one days from the date the trial court entered its decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, the court was without jurisdiction to enter a further decree affecting the parties’ marital property. To the extent that the November 13, 1984, decree adjudicates an award of equitable distribution pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(A), I would hold that decree to be a nullity.