Court Opinion

ID: 9587671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:25:02.587302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:23.728381
License: Public Domain

Benton, J.,
dissenting.
As a result of today’s decision, all attorneys who practice in this Court are put on notice that a full transcript of every hearing held in the trial court must be filed in this Court in every case to protect against a procedural dismissal of the appeal. Such a rule is unnecessary, unduly expensive to the litigants, and ill considered. As this case aptly demonstrates, whenever a transcript is absent, this Court will entertain an appellee’s argument that an issue, unsupported in the record, could possibly have been raised at trial. Thus, every appeal in which any transcript has not been filed is subject to dismissal.
The attorney for the appellee conceded at oral argument that the wife did not raise in the trial court the issue of equitable estoppel. He also conceded that the trial judge did not state that equitable estoppel was an issue in the case or that equitable estoppel was the basis of the trial judge’s decision. Indeed, the final order of the trial judge decides a contract issue only and contains no indication that equitable estoppel was an issue in the trial Court. Appellee’s argument in support of a dismissal is as follows: although equitable estoppel was not presented to the trial judge as an issue and although the trial judge did not decide the case upon principles of equitable estoppel, there was evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing from which this Court, if it had a transcript, could find sufficient facts upon which to conclude that equitable estoppel was available as a defense to the wife. Appellee misconstrues the nature and function of appellate review.
This Court has repeatedly held that an issue that was not in dispute in the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. See Westbrook v. Westbrook, 5 Va. App. 446, 451, 364 S.E.2d 523, 526 (1988); Green v. Warwick Plumbing & Heating Corp., 5 Va. App. 409, 412-13, 364 S.E.2d 4, 6, appeal dismissed, 371 S.E.2d 7 (Va. 1988); Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. *660App. 188, 195 n.2, 361 S.E.2d 436, 440 n.2 (1987). This has long been the rule of appellate practice in Virginia. See Eason v. Eason, 204 Va. 347, 352, 131 S.E.2d 280, 283 (1963); Womble v. Gunter, 198 Va. 522, 528, 95 S.E.2d 213, 218 (1956); Stevens v. Mirakian, 111 Va. 123, 129, 12 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1941). Although it may not have been necessary for the wife to assert the defense of equitable estoppel in her initial pleadings in the trial Court, see Lawson v. States Constr. Co., 193 Va. 513, 521, 69 S.E.2d 450, 455 (1952), if she did not claim equitable estoppel as a defense at trial, that issue was never adjudicated and “[t]hus, [this defense is] not properly before us,” Hill v. Hill, 227 Va. 569, 579, 318 S.E.2d 292, 298 (1984). Nonenforcement of the rule in this case cannot be reconciled with past appellate decisions. With or without the transcript, it is clear that the issue of equitable estoppel was raised for the first time on appeal.
The majority adopts the appellee’s argument and states that “without a transcript, we cannot determine if estoppel was presented to the trial court or if sufficient evidence supported such a theory.” The majority’s conclusion is inexplicable. The appellee’s brief does not assert that estoppel was raised in any fashion as an issue to be decided by the trial judge. Moreover, appellee’s concession that the wife never raised the issue of equitable estoppel at trial disposes of the majority’s thesis that “without a transcript, we cannot determine if estoppel was presented to the trial court.”3
*661The majority’s other thesis that “without a transcript, we cannot determine ... if sufficient evidence supported [the equitable estoppel] theory” derives from the wife’s argument on appeal that, although the trial judge may have decided the case on the legal issue of construction of the contract, the decision must be affirmed if it is right for the wrong reason. The answer to this argument requires no extended discussion. Based upon clear precedent, this Court recently held that “[t]he [right-for-the-wrong-reason] rule does not always apply. It may not be used if the correct reason for affirming the trial court was not raised in any manner at trial.” Driscoll v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 449, 452, 417 S.E.2d 312, 313-14 (1992)(citing Eason, 204 Va. at 352, 131 S.E.2d at 283). Thus, appellee’s concession also negates the majority’s alternative thesis.
In addition to appellee’s concession, the record before this Court proves the wife did not argue equitable estoppel in the trial court. At no time did the wife set forth in any pleading a claim of equitable estoppel. Indeed, both parties submitted the contract issue to the trial judge as a matter of law. Each party filed a memorandum of law upon which the contract issue was submitted to the trial judge for decision. Nowhere in the wife’s memorandum is there any intimation of equitable estoppel. The wife’s memorandum asserted that the agreement was unambiguous and suggested an interpretation of the provision at issue, Section VII, that was favorable to her recovery. Likewise, the husband asserted that the issue was a legal question, the construction of Section VII, and suggested an interpretation favorable to his recovery. The evidentiary hearing was held at the trial judge’s request. The issue contemplated by the trial judge and the parties at the trial level was clearly that of construing the agreement. The trial judge addressed that issue in his final order. The record submitted in conjunction with this appeal is entirely adequate and complete for our review of that legal issue, the only one raised at trial and decided by the trial judge.
Thus, the sole question on appeal is whether the trial judge correctly construed an unambiguous provision of the parties’ separation and property agreement. “If the record on appeal is sufficient in the absence of the transcript to determine the merits of the issues on appeal, the court is free to hear and resolve the case.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 516, 519, 375 S.E.2d *662364, 366 (1988) (citing Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986)). It is so in this case.4
The provision of the agreement at issue concerns liens on the marital residence. The husband argues that the wife eliminated the husband’s responsibility to make payments as contemplated by the provision, which reads as follows:
The Wife agrees to assume the obligation of the first lien indebtedness thereon and to indemnify and to hold the husband harmless thereon. The Husband agrees to be responsible for the payment under the second deed of trust encumbering said property, to make payments directly to the lender, and to indemnify and hold Wife harmless thereon, and further agrees that this obligation shall not be discharge-able in bankruptcy.
The foregoing notwithstanding in the event the Wife enters into a bona fide contract with a third party for the sale of said real estate, the Husband shall be entitled to a right of first refusal to purchase property. ... In the event the Husband exercises his right of first refusal granted herein within the sixty (60) day period, the Wife agrees to allow him to assume the obligations for both the first and second deeds of trust encumbering the property, if no opposition appears from the lenders of said deeds of trust, as partial payment of the purchase price of the property. In the event the Husband declines to exercise his right of first refusal thereunder, the Wife agrees to pay all and satisfy in full the principal balance due and owing under the notes secured by both deeds of trust from the proceeds received by her from the sale of the property, unless the purchasing third party legally assumes the obligation of the first deed of trust, in which case only the second deed of trust must be satisfied in full by the Wife, (emphasis added).
*663Other provisions of the agreement required the husband to convey his interest in the marital residence to the wife. After the husband had conveyed his interest, the wife refinanced the obligations that were secured by the deeds of trust and, thus, extinguished both the existing first and second deeds of trust. As a consequence of the refinancing, no second deed of trust now exists.
The husband argued that the wife eliminated the husband’s responsibility to make payments as contemplated by this provision. However, the trial judge ordered the husband to pay the wife various sums of money, which, according to the agreement, were to be paid to the original second deed of trust lender. The final order erroneously required the husband to make payments in a manner not specified in the property settlement agreement and recited that the husband’s “obligation to pay the second deed of trust. . . was not discharged by the refinancing of the indebtedness.”
“[P]roperty settlement agreements are contracts and subject to the same rules of . . . interpretation as other contracts.” Smith v. Smith, 3 Va. App. 510, 513, 351 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986).
“It is the function of the court to construe the contract made by the parties, not to make a contract for them. The question for the court is what did the parties agree to as evidenced by their contract. 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.”
Hederick v. Hederick, 3 Va. App. 452, 455-56, 350 S.E.2d 526, 528 (1986) (quoting Wilson v. Holyfield, 227 Va. 184, 187, 313 S.E.2d 396, 398 (1984)). Thus, “[w]here there is no ambiguity in the terms of a contract, we must construe it as written” and give its terms their plain and ordinary meanings. Smith, 3 Va. App. at 514, 351 S.E.2d at 596.
The wife points to no ambiguity in the agreement that required the trial court to consider parol evidence to resolve the issue. Indeed, the wife suggested to the trial judge by memorandum that “to construe the contract here at issue, it is necessary ... to examine the entire contract here at issue.” Neither party suggested to the trial judge that the taking of evidence was necessary to de*664cide the issue.5 I would conclude that the agreement is unambiguous and, further, that the trial judge erred in receiving parol evidence to discover the parties’ intention in drafting the agreement.
Nothing in the agreement requires the husband to make payments to the wife as ordered by the trial judge. The agreement only obligated the husband to make payments to the second deed of trust lender.6 The wife’s refinancing, however, fully satisfied and extinguished the second deed of trust note. “[Cjourts cannot read into contracts language which will add to or take away from the meaning of the words already contained therein.” Wilson, 227 Va. at 187, 313 S.E.2d at 398. “ ‘However inartfully it may have been drawn, the Court cannot make a new contract for the parties.’ ” Tiffany v. Tiffany, 1 Va. App. 11, 16, 332 S.E.2d 796, 799 (1985) (quoting Berry v. Klinger, 225 Va. 201, 208, 300 S.E.2d 792, 796 (1983)).
Upon consideration of “ ‘the words within the four corners of the disputed provision,’” Wilson, 227 Va. at 188, 313 S.E.2d at 398, I would conclude that the words of the disputed provision do not create an obligation for the husband to pay anyone other than the holder of the second deed of trust. The husband’s contractual responsibility was extinguished when the note secured by the second deed of trust was paid by the wife’s refinancing.7 Therefore, I *665would find no procedural bar to reaching the merits of this issue and would vacate the order that requires the husband to make the payments directly to the wife.

 In the discharge of his obligation as an officer of this Court, appellee’s counsel candidly and forthrightly conceded at oral argument that the defense of equitable estoppel was never presented to the trial judge. I do not intend to use counsel’s concession against him in any punitive fashion. That concession was unavoidable because appellee’s brief scrupulously avoided any assertion that equitable estoppel was pleaded or placed in issue at any point in the trial proceeding. In the absence of any reference to equitable estoppel in the trial court pleadings, in the memoranda of law, in the final order, or in any other place in the record, the assertion in the appellee’s brief on appeal, for the first time, of arguments concerning equitable estoppel requires some explanation. The majority ignores the absence in the record of any reference to “estoppel” or “equitable estoppel” and engages in the legal fiction that those issues hypothetically might be found in the transcript that was not timely filed. However, appellee’s concession admitted no more than is obvious from a perusal of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing that was lodged in the record on appeal due to its untimely filing. That same transcript discloses the wife objected to the hearing as being unnecessary in view of the arguments submitted in her legal memorandum to the trial judge.

 Although I agree that the appellant is required by Rule 5A:6(b) to state “whether any transcript . . . will be filed,” nothing in the Rules suggests or implies that the failure to perform this administrative function is a cause for dismissal of an appeal. Absent some prejudice to the appellee, the appellant’s failure to insert such directory language, which surely was intended to alert the clerk for purposes of preparing the record on appeal, does not provide a basis upon which to deprive an appellant of an appeal. Furthermore, even if Rule 5A:6(b) were intended to benefit the appellee, the failure to timely file the transcript in this case after appellant made the requisite certification is patently harmless.

 Indeed, if the transcript of the evidentiary hearing were properly before us, the majority would be aware that the wife explicitly objected to the hearing and asserted that the trial judge should decide the issue on the legal arguments in the memoranda.

 The husband’s interest in paying the second deed of trust noteholder and not the wife, who now has sole title to the property, is obvious. In accordance with the agreement, the husband transferred title and all his interest in the property to the wife. The husband and wife bargained for the husband to pay the second deed of trust noteholder and to relieve the wife of that payment for so long as that note existed during its term or until she sold the property to a third party. If the wife entered into a contract to sell the property to a third party, the husband had a right of first refusal to purchase the property. Upon his exercise of the right to purchase, the husband then had the right to assume the payments on the second deed of trust note in partial payment of the purchase price. If the husband declined to exercise the right of first refusal, the husband’s obligation to pay the second deed of trust note was extinguished.

 The wife did not raise in the circuit court or in this Court the question of the indemnity clause that is addressed in the concurring opinion. The trial judge’s judgment order also did not rest on indemnity. By the express wording of the contract, the husband’s promise to indemnify the wife and hold her harmless would only arise from the husband’s failure to make the payments that he committed to make to the second deed of trust note-holder. Because the condition of the indemnity agreement was not met, the agreement to indemnify did not become fixed. See Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. United States Fidelity & *665Guar. Co., 99 Md. 423, 58 A. 437 (1904). By agreeing to pay the second deed of trust noteholder, the husband did not agree to indemnify the wife against all claims that might arise under the note, only those that arose from his failure to pay the second deed of trust noteholder in accordance with his undertaking. The husband did not breach that covenant to pay. The wife has not and cannot claim that she has suffered loss because of the note-holder’s call of the note or because of acceleration of payments due to the husband’s default.
Any loss that the wife suffered has been occasioned by her own decision to refinance the deeds of trust notes, an event for which the husband did not contract to indemnify her. Husband did not agree to indemnify her for damage she suffered because of her own willful conduct. For purposes of her own convenience, the wife refinanced the deeds of trust notes after the title was transferred to her and prepaid the entire balance due on the second deed of trust note. Since her right to indemnity arises only upon the non-performance of the thing the husband bound himself to do, i.e., tender of payment to the second deed of trust noteholder in accordance with the terms of the note, the wife has no cognizable claim for indemnity. The party who claims the right of indemnification must prove that the “contract . . . clearly and definitely show[s] an intention to indemnify against a certain loss or liability.” Moore v. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 493 F. Supp. 1252, 1269 (S.D. W. Va. 1980), affd, 649 F.2d 1004 (4th Cir. 1981); see also Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike Auth., 202 Va. 1029, 1033, 121 S.E.2d 499, 503 (1961). Nothing in the contract provided for an indemnity against the wife’s conduct or omissions and certainly not against her voluntary prepayment in the absence of the husband’s breach. In order to be eligible for indemnity under the terms of this agreement, the wife must demonstrate that she was under some compulsion to satisfy a claim due to the husband’s default and, thus, had a right to be indemnified under the agreement. See Glover v. Johns-Manville Corp., 662 F.2d 225, 228 (4th Cir. 1981). That is not this case. She has not proved and cannot prove the husband’s actual or anticipatory breach.