Court Opinion

ID: 9962341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 15:19:29.338142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:46.828094
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges O’Brien, AtLee and Chaney
UNPUBLISHED

              Argued at Fredericksburg, Virginia

              DAVID A. RENBERG
                                                                          MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
              v.     Record No. 1362-22-4                                 JUDGE RICHARD Y. ATLEE, JR.
                                                                                 APRIL 23, 2024
              JULIA RENBERG

                               FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
                                          Alfred D. Swersky, Judge Designate

                              William D. Ashwell (Ashwell & Ashwell, PLLC, on brief), for
                              appellant.

                              Jeff Evan Lowinger (Cheryl M. New; Melissa L. Schefkind; New &
                              Lowinger, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

                     Appellant David Renberg (“husband”)1 appeals the circuit court’s entry of a qualifying

              court order (“QCO”) dividing his military pension. He argues that the circuit court erred

              entering the QCO because the QCO required him to list Julia Renberg (“wife”) as the beneficiary

              of the survivor benefit plan (“SBP”) connected to his military pension in contravention of the

              terms of the parties’ marital settlement agreement (“MSA”) and the divorce decree. He also

              argues that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter the QCO because the QCO

              modified the substantive terms of the divorce decree in violation of Rule 1:1. We agree and

              reverse the decision of the circuit court and vacate the QCO.

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                     1
                       We recognize that “former husband” and “former wife” are more accurate designations.
              Nevertheless, we use these less cumbersome titles in this memorandum opinion for ease of
              reference.
                                           I. BACKGROUND

        The parties married in 1996, and they separated in July 2020. As part of the divorce

proceedings, the parties utilized the services of Pamela Squires, a paralegal, to assist with the

division of their retirement assets. The retirement asset at issue here is the survivor benefit plan

connected to husband’s military pension.2 Squires inquired whether “the military SBP [is] to be

maintained for Wife.” Via email to wife’s counsel, husband indicated that he did not intend to leave

wife as the beneficiary. After further communications between husband’s and wife’s counsel,3

wife’s counsel stated that Squires would draft the QCO with wife as the SBP beneficiary. In a

March 3, 2022 email, husband’s counsel stated that his client had “no issue with [the] proposed SBP

designation.”

        On March 8, 2022, the circuit court entered a consent order reflecting the parties’ agreement

to “jointly utilize the services of Pamela Squires, Retirement Paralegal Services, LLC” to perform

certain tasks. The consent order specified that Squires would assist in calculating the marital

portion of the parties’ retirement assets, including the military pension, which was listed in Exhibit 2

        2
          Under the survivor benefit plan established by 10 U.S.C. §§ 1447-1455, a military
retiree can elect to provide an annuity to an eligible beneficiary. Under the plan, the military
retiree takes less upon retirement to allow the beneficiary to continue receiving up to 55% of the
military retiree’s retirement pay upon the military retiree’s death. 10 U.S.C. §§ 1450, 1451.
        3
          After husband indicated that he did not intend to maintain wife as the SBP beneficiary,
wife’s counsel informed husband’s counsel that wife was the beneficiary and “that must remain
the status quo as he is already in retired status.” Husband’s counsel indicated that he was still
discussing the issue with his client, but that he did not consent to that at that time. Wife’s
counsel responded that “[c]hanging the SBP designation is not an option” because husband was
“already in retired pay status.” Husband’s counsel then sent the March 3 email indicating that
there was “no issue with [the] proposed SBP designation.” Contrary to wife’s counsel’s claims,
the military member is not required to maintain the former spouse as the beneficiary of the SBP
plan upon divorce simply because the retiree is already retired, though he or she can elect to do
so voluntarily or by court order pursuant to the divorce. See 10 U.S.C. § 1448(b)(5); Dugan v.
Childers, 261 Va. 3, 6 (2001); see also Stopping Survivor Benefits Program, U.S. Dep’t of Def.:
Military Compensation, https://perma.cc/V4XM-VRCY (describing special situations including
changes to coverage due to divorce after retirement).
                                                  -2-
of the consent order, “[d]raft[ing] the appropriate language in a written agreement necessary to

effectuate the parties’ intent to equally divide the marital portions of their respective retirement

accounts,” and “[p]repar[ing] the appropriate documents and court orders in order to accomplish the

provisions of any written agreement reached by the parties as to the division of all retirement

accounts and in accordance with the requirements of each plan.”

        On May 19, 2022, the parties executed a MSA dividing their assets. Paragraph 17 sets out

the parties’ agreement relating to the retirement accounts and pensions as follows:

                By Consent Order Regarding Retirement Assets (Weimer, C.)
                (hereinafter referred to as “Consent Order”) entered on March 8,
                2022, in the Divorce Action, the Parties reached an agreement as to
                the division of the marital portions of their respective retirement
                accounts referenced on Exhibits “1” and “2” of the Consent
                Order.[4] As set forth therein, the Parties shall comply fully with
                all requests of Pamela Squires to implement said terms.

Paragraph 33 provided that the MSA “contains the entire understanding of the Parties. All prior

agreements between the Parties respecting their property, support, and marital rights are hereby

invalidated.” On June 30, 2022, the circuit court entered the final decree of divorce, which

incorporated, but did not merge, the MSA into the final decree.

        After the final decree was entered, Squires provided the parties with the draft orders,

including the QCO, necessary to accomplish the division of the retirement accounts. Husband

objected to the inclusion of wife as the SBP beneficiary in the draft order and refused to endorse

it. On July 27, 2022, wife filed a motion for entry of the QCO,5 and husband objected. At a

        4
          Exhibit 1 lists the parties’ retirement accounts and the information necessary to divide
them, including value on the date of valuation, marital value, and the value of any separate share.
Exhibit 2 lists the parties’ pensions and defined benefit plans. Relating to the military pension, it
sets out the date husband retired, that it is in active pay status, and a proposed distribution of the
pension.

        Wife’s motion asked the circuit court to enter four different retirement orders prepared
        5

by Squires. Only the order relating to the military pension is at issue in this appeal.
                                                -3-
hearing on the issue, wife argued that the MSA required the parties to comply with the requests

of Squires in implementing the terms of their agreement. She pointed to the March 3 email

where, in response to Squires’s questions, husband agreed that wife could remain the SBP

beneficiary. Husband argued that the MSA was the full and complete agreement of the parties

and neither it nor the consent order even mentioned the SBP benefit. Thus, he argued that the

QCO should reflect the agreement of the parties and not modify the terms. The circuit court

granted wife’s motion and entered the QCO. It also awarded wife $2,500 in attorney fees.

       Husband filed a motion to reconsider. He argued that wife incorrectly led the circuit

court to believe that the email exchange was an agreement of the parties that bound husband to

name wife as the SBP beneficiary. He stated that he believed that the circuit court relied on that

representation in its ruling, and he reiterated that the QCO substantively modified the MSA and

divorce decree. The circuit court denied the motion to reconsider. In a letter opinion, it noted

that paragraph 17 of the MSA “recites the Consent Order and refers to the exhibits,” and

therefore, the “division of the military pension was contemplated by the Parties.” It stated that it

“did not solely rely on the email sent by counsel on March 3, 2022.” Husband now appeals.

                                           II. ANALYSIS

       Husband argues that neither the MSA nor the divorce decree requires him to name wife as

the SPB beneficiary in connection with his military pension. Thus, he argues that the circuit court

was without jurisdiction because the QCO, which named wife as the SBP beneficiary, modified the

terms of the MSA and divorce decree more than 21 days after entry of the divorce decree. Because

the circuit court’s jurisdiction turns on whether the QCO modified the terms of the MSA and

divorce decree, we must first determine what the terms of the MSA required.

        “In construing the terms of a property settlement agreement, just as in construing the

terms of any contract, [this Court is] not bound by the trial court’s conclusions as to the

                                                -4-
construction of the disputed provisions.” Allen v. Allen, 66 Va. App. 586, 595 (2016) (alteration

in original) (quoting Smith v. Smith, 3 Va. App. 510, 513 (1986)). Instead, we review the circuit

court’s interpretation of a contract de novo. Id.

       Marital agreements “are contracts and are subject to the same rules of construction that

apply to the interpretation of contracts generally.” Jones v. Gates, 68 Va. App. 100, 105 (2017)

(quoting Southerland v. Est. of Southerland, 249 Va. 584, 588 (1995)). “Contracts are construed

as written, without adding terms that were not included by the parties.” Allen, 66 Va. App. at

596 (quoting TM Delmarva Power, L.L.C. v. NCP of Va., L.L.C., 263 Va. 116, 119 (2002)). If

the language is “clear and unambiguous, the contract is construed according to its plain

meaning.” Id. (quoting TM Delmarva Power, 263 Va. at 119). “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.” Schuiling v. Harris, 286 Va. 187, 192 (2013) (quoting Wilson v. Holyfield,

227 Va. 184, 187 (1984)). “The question for [this Court] is what did the parties agree to as

evidenced by their contract.” Allen, 66 Va. App. at 596 (alteration in original) (quoting Wilson,

227 Va. at 187).

       Paragraph 17 of the MSA, titled “Retirement Accounts and Pensions,” provides that in

the consent order “the Parties reached an agreement as to the division of the marital portions of

their respective retirement accounts” and attached exhibits evidencing that agreement.

Additionally, it said that the “[p]arties shall comply fully with all requests of Pamela Squires to

implement said terms.” Nothing in the language of this provision, or any other provision in the

MSA, requires husband to name wife as the SBP beneficiary. This provision simply incorporates

the agreement reached by the parties in the March 8 consent order.

                                                -5-
       While the consent order does appoint Squires to assist the parties, it also sets out the

parameters within which she is assisting. Under the consent order, she is to (1) calculate the

marital share of each account listed in the exhibits, (2) calculate the “amount necessary to

equalize the value” of the retirement accounts, (3) draft a written agreement “to effectuate the

parties’ intent to equally divide the marital portions” of each account, and (4) prepare the

documents and court orders to accomplish “the provisions of any written agreement.” Nothing

in this language implicates the SBP.

       Nor does the language of exhibit 2, attached to the consent order, mention the SBP. It

mentions that husband is already retired and thus in active pay status, and it suggests a proposed

distribution of the account. But the exhibit does not list a proposed SBP beneficiary or even the

current SBP beneficiary. In fact, the exhibit does not mention the SBP at all.

       Viewing the MSA and consent order together, there is nothing in either document that

makes any kind of reference to the SBP. Nor is there anything in the language that could be

considered a reference to the SBP. We will not read into the contract language or terms that

were not included by the parties. See Allen, 66 Va. App. at 596 (“[C]ourts will generally not

infer covenants and promises which are not contained in the written provisions.” (quoting

Pellegrin v. Pellegrin, 31 Va. App. 753, 759 (2000))).

       Wife argues that paragraph 17 of the MSA required the parties to fully cooperate with

Squires, and she argues that Squires prepared the QCO “based upon the information and

agreements between the parties.” Specifically, she points to the March 3 email in which husband

agreed to keep wife as the SBP beneficiary. We find this argument unpersuasive.

                                                -6-
       Although husband may have agreed by email to maintain wife as the SBP beneficiary,

that agreement is not reflected in the consent order or the MSA.6 And courts may not “rewrite

contracts” or add terms that were not included by the parties. City of Chesapeake v. Dominion

Securityplus Self Storage, L.L.C., 291 Va. 327, 335 (2016) (quoting Dewberry & Davis, Inc. v.

C3NS, Inc., 284 Va. 485, 496 (2012)). And “[t]he omission of a term from a written contract

evidences intent to exclude it.” Robinson-Huntley v. George Washington Carver Mut. Homes

Ass’n, 287 Va. 425, 430 (2014). Furthermore, paragraph 33 of the MSA states that the MSA

“contains the entire understanding of the [p]arties,” and it invalidates “[a]ll prior agreements

between the [p]arties respecting their property, support, and marital rights.” Whatever the parties

may have initially agreed upon regarding the SBP,7 they did not include that term in the MSA,

which constitutes their entire agreement. Both husband and wife are bound by the terms of the

contract, and that contract did not require husband to name wife as the SBP beneficiary. See

Chesapeake, 291 Va. at 335 (“[P]arties to a contract will be held to the terms upon which they

agreed.” (quoting Dewberry & Davis, 284 Va. at 496)). Thus, the QCO was inconsistent with

the provisions of the parties’ MSA and the divorce decree.

       6
          “When an agreement is plain and unambiguous on its face, the Court will not look for
meaning beyond the instrument itself.” Robinson-Huntley v. George Washington Carver Mut.
Homes Ass’n, 287 Va. 425, 429 (2014) (quoting Eure v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp.,
263 Va. 624, 632 (2002)). It is only when the agreement is ambiguous that we are permitted to
look beyond the agreement and consider parol evidence to ascertain the intent of the parties. Id.
Here, the parties’ agreement is unambiguous. Thus, we consider only the plain language of the
agreement, and we are not permitted to consider the email exchange in determining the intent of
the parties.
       7
         Additionally, the fact that the parties agreed to “comply fully” with all requests of
Squires does not mean that the parties were required to accept any order that Squires prepared.
Paragraph 17 required the parties to “comply fully with all requests of Pamela Squires to
implement said terms.” (Emphasis added.) Despite their agreement to comply, the order still
had to comply with the terms of the parties’ agreement. The order prepared by Squires did not
comply with the ultimate terms agreed upon by the parties in their MSA. Husband was not
required to simply accept the order because he agreed to cooperate with Squires’s requests.
                                                 -7-
        Because the divorce decree and MSA did not require husband to name wife as the SBP

beneficiary, we turn next to whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to enter an order requiring

husband to do so.

        Under Rule 1:1, a trial court loses jurisdiction to modify a final order, including a divorce

decree, more than 21 days after its entry. Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) provides a limited exception to

Rule 1:1. Code § 20-107.3(K) permits the circuit court to enter orders “necessary to effectuate

and enforce any order” entered pursuant to that code section. Under this exception, a court

retains jurisdiction to enter or maintain a qualified domestic relations order dividing a party’s

retirement account after the expiration of the 21 days. Williams v. Williams, 32 Va. App. 72, 75

(2000). That order, however, “must be ‘consistent with the substantive provisions of the original

decree.’” Id. (quoting Caudle v. Caudle, 18 Va. App. 795, 798 (1994)).

        As explained above, the MSA, as incorporated into the divorce decree, did not require

husband to name wife as the SBP beneficiary. Thus, the QCO listing wife as the SBP

beneficiary was a modification of, and not consistent with, the substantive terms of the divorce

decree, and it did not fall within the limited exception to Rule 1:1 in Code § 20-107.3(K)(4).

Because more than 21 days had passed since the entry of the divorce decree, and the order did

not fall within the Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) exception, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to

enter the QCO naming wife as the SBP beneficiary.

                                           III. CONCLUSION

        Neither the parties’ agreement nor the divorce decree required husband to name wife as the

beneficiary of the SBP. Therefore, the QCO substantively modified the parties’ agreement, and the

circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter it more than 21 days after entry of the final decree.

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the circuit court, vacate the QCO, and vacate the award of

                                                  -8-
$2,500 in attorney fees to wife. This case is remanded to the circuit court for entry of an order

consistent with this opinion.

                                                                   Reversed, vacated, and remanded.

                                                 -9-