Vilma G. Romer v. John H. Romer (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: DR-06-1129)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/04/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080353 Vilma G. Romer v. John H. Romer 2080498 Vilma G. Romer v. John H. Romer Appeals from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-06-1129) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . 2080353, 2080498 The o p i n i o n o f September 25, 2009, i s w i t h d r a w n , and t h e following i s substituted therefor. V i l m a G. Romer ( " t h e w i f e " ) a p p e a l s f r o m an o r d e r o f t h e Madison C i r c u i t Court v a c a t i n g a q u a l i f i e d domestic order ("QDRO") i t h a d e n t e r e d divorcing pursuant t o i t s judgment J o h n H. Romer ( " t h e h u s b a n d " ) a n d h e r ( a p p e a l no. 2 0 8 0 3 5 3 ) , a s w e l l a s f r o m a QDRO s u b s e q u e n t l y t r i a l c o u r t ( a p p e a l no. 2 0 8 0 4 9 8 ) . wife's appeals. appeal no. 2080353, vacating divorce reverse QDRO, we July 24, 2006, the wife from t h e husband. writing, provided, receive "[t]he accumulated the t r i a l vacate court's the t r i a l order court's filed I n January an a c t i o n s e e k i n g a 2008, t h e h u s b a n d a n d an a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e i r property. ($600,0 00) s t a t e d h e r e i n , we d i s m i s s e n t e r e d QDRO o r d e r , a n d we remand t h e c a u s e . the w i f e reached marital we entered by the This court c o n s o l i d a t e d the F o r t h e reasons i t s original subsequently On relations Their agreement, among o t h e r sum DOLLARS through was r e d u c e d things, that the wife o f S I X HUNDRED from which t h e Husband's h i s employment THOUSAND AND retirement with to would 00/100 account[] Radiology of H u n t s v i l l e , P.C." The a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was 2 2080353, to 2080498 receive "[t]he balance remaining of any retirement a c c o u n t [ ] a c c u m u l a t e d t h r o u g h h i s employment w i t h R a d i o l o g y o f Huntsville, P.C. n o t e d above." after t h e a w a r d o f $600,000 t o t h e W i f e The h u s b a n d e x e c u t e d t h e a g r e e m e n t on January 28, 2 0 0 8 ; t h e w i f e e x e c u t e d t h e a g r e e m e n t on M a r c h 14, On March 26, 2008, d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s . written the trial court awarding alter judgment agreement. purpose account. a 2008. The j u d g m e n t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e p a r t i e s ' On September 24, 2008, t h e t r i a l the entered as the 1 of implementing wife that $600,000 On O c t o b e r from c o u r t e n t e r e d a QDRO f o r portion the of i t s judgment husband's retirement 21, 2008, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o o r amend t h e QDRO. The husband a s s e r t e d t h a t he had a g r e e d t o p a y t h e w i f e a l a r g e r amount o f m o n t h l y a l i m o n y t h a n he believed parties she entered was into entitled their t o because, agreement at the time i n January 2008, the the amount t o be a w a r d e d t o t h e w i f e f r o m t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t account c o n s t i t u t e d l e s s than h a l f of the t o t a l funds i n t h a t QDROs a r e p r o v i d e d f o r u n d e r t h e f e d e r a l Employment R e t i r e m e n t Income S e c u r i t y A c t , 29 U.S.C. § 1001 e t s e q . , and " f a c i l i t a t e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p e n s i o n s and e m p l o y e e b e n e f i t s t h a t are s u b j e c t t o [the] p r o v i s i o n s [of the a c t ] . " Duran v. D u r a n , 657 N.W.2d 692, 694 n.1 (S.D. 2 0 0 3 ) . 1 3 2080353, 2080498 account. He a s s e r t e d judgment, that, h i s retirement approximately since the date account had decreased i n value $1,700,000 t o $1,150,000. i n t e n t a t t h e time they entered dividing the m a r i t a l assets was t h a t $600,000 f r o m t h e r e t i r e m e n t account divorce judgment, with thereof from t h a t date u n t i l "together into t h e agreement t h e w i f e would receive as o f t h e date of the a l l earnings and l o s s e s the date o f d i s t r i b u t i o n . " i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d b e e n i n f o r m e d b y c o u n s e l retirement from He a r g u e d t h a t t h e parties' also of the divorce account t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s QDRO d i d n o t He forthe comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f f e d e r a l l a w a n d n e e d e d t o be amended to how correctly identify the retirement account and t o s p e c i f y payment was t o be made t o t h e w i f e from t h e r e t i r e m e n t account. I n h e r r e s p o n s e t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend t h e QDRO, t h e w i f e a r g u e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n s o u g h t , i n actuality, an amendment o f t h e d i v o r c e that the t r i a l c o u r t no l o n g e r judgment; had j u r i s d i c t i o n she argued t o make s u c h a m o d i f i c a t i o n a n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n was due t o be d i s m i s s e d . divorce judgment, She c o n t e n d e d and o f t h e p a r t i e s ' 4 that t h e terms agreement of the incorporated 2080353, 2080498 t h e r e i n , were c l e a r a n d unambiguous i n t h e i r r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t the h u s b a n d p a y t o h e r a sum c e r t a i n from his retirement account r a t h e r than a percentage of h i s retirement She d e n i e d account. t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' i n t e n t was t o b u r d e n h e r $600,000 award from t h e r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t w i t h t h e e a r n i n g s and l o s s e s from t h e d a t e o f t h e judgment u n t i l t h e d a t e o f d i s t r i b u t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n a t which i t r e c e i v e d ore tenus evidence. On December 24, 2008, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n and vacating i t s QDRO. Relying on t h i s court's decision i n B u c h a n a n v . B u c h a n a n , 936 So. 2 d 1084 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , the t r i a l its c o u r t found t h a t i t s judgment o f d i v o r c e as w e l l as QDRO were " i n h e r e n t l y ambiguous" because they d i d not m e n t i o n t h e i m p a c t o f m a r k e t f l u c t u a t i o n s on t h e v a l u e o f t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t delay both i n theentry parties' The t r i a l f o r the delay. counsel The t r i a l i n t e n t was t h a t t h e w i f e retirement court found t h a t t h e o f t h e QDRO was t h e f a u l t of the parties but that responsible trial account. of counsel f o r f o r the wife court was more found t h a t t h e r e c e i v e from the husband's a c c o u n t an amount e q u a l t o 3 5 . 5 % o f i t s v a l u e . court ordered t h a t a new QDRO be e n t e r e d 5 that The reflected 2080353, 2080498 its findings. The w i f e f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal t o t h i s f r o m t h e December 24, On that January 26, 2008, order. 2009, t h e t r i a l indicated that the r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t was wife's 35.5% o r d e r p r o v i d e d t h a t i t was court court entered interest in a new the QDRO husband's of the v a l u e of the account. the t r i a l The court's intent that the p a r t i e s bear p r o p o r t i o n a l l y the decrease i n the value of the a c c o u n t s i n c e the date of the judgment d i v o r c i n g the The This wife filed a timely notice of c o u r t c o n s o l i d a t e d the w i f e ' s We first address wife's appeals. this appeal from parties. that order. appeals. court's jurisdiction over the W i t h some e x c e p t i o n s , t h i s c o u r t ' s a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n extends only to f i n a l judgments. Although most a c t i o n s a t law i n v o l v e o n l y a s i n g l e f i n a l judgment ( g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r i n g t h e payment o f money damages by, of, a defendant), multiple Equity, final Inc., e q u i t a b l e a c t i o n s can judgments. 713 So. 2d or the and exoneration o f t e n do involve I n James v. A l a b a m a C o a l i t i o n 937 ( A l a . 1997), our supreme wrote: " ' E q u i t y d e c r e e s may be p a r t l y f i n a l and p a r t l y i n t e r l o c u t o r y . A d e c r e e w h i c h a s c e r t a i n s and d e c l a r e s t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s and s e t t l e s t h e e q u i t i e s i s a f i n a l 6 for court 2080353, 2080498 decree, although i t provides f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s under the d i r e c t i o n of the court i n order to c a r r y the decree i n t o effect. I f there i s a decree d i r e c t i n g f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s under the d i r e c t i o n of the c o u r t i n o r d e r t o make t h e f i n a l d e c r e e e f f e c t i v e , s u c h d e c r e e i s i n t e r l o c u t o r y and remains w i t h i n the c o n t r o l of the c o u r t because as t o s u c h d e c r e e and further p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e u n d e r the cause remains i n fieri.' "'[Newton v. Ware,] 271 A l a . [444,] 450, 124 So. 2d [664,] 670 [ ( 1 9 6 0 ) ] , q u o t e d i n T a y l o r [v. T a y l o r , 398 So. 2d 267 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , ] and S e x t o n [ v . S e x t o n , 280 A l a . 479, 195 So. 2d 531 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ] . "Even more s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h i s c a s e , ' [ i ] n e q u i t y c a s e s t h e r e c a n be more t h a n one f i n a l j u d g m e n t f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l may be t a k e n . ' N o r r i s v. N o r r i s , 406 So. 2d 946, 948 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1981) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; see a l s o C h a d w i c k v. Town o f H a m m o n d v i l l e , 270 A l a . 618, 621, 120 So. 2d 899, 902 ( 1 9 6 0 ) . T h i s i s so b e c a u s e ' t h e r e may r e m a i n ... o t h e r m a t t e r s i n w h i c h t h e e q u i t i e s have not been s e t t l e d or p r o c e e d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o e n f o r c e the judgment p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d . A court has i n h e r e n t power t o i s s u e s u c h o r d e r s o r p r o c e s s as n e c e s s a r y t o r e n d e r i t s judgment e f f e c t i v e . ' 406 So. 2d a t 948; Monroe v. M o n r o e, 356 So. 2d 196 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) . " James, 713 trial So. 2d a t 945. court has the Moreover, inherent authority implement ... i t s own j u d g m e n t s . ' " 768, ( A l a . C i v . App. 918 771 So. 2d 127, 131 2007) to interpret [or] Downs v. Downs, 978 So. (quoting ( A l a . C i v . App. 7 "'our cases h o l d t h a t a J a r d i n e v. 2005)). 2d Jardine, 2080353, 2080498 In t h e present case, the t r i a l court's M a r c h 26, 2008, judgment o f d i v o r c e c o n s t i t u t e d a f i n a l judgment, i n s p i t e o f the fact that subsequent Franz, a entry portion o f t h e judgment o f a QDRO required the f o r implementation. Franz v. 732 So. 2d 6 1 , 65 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . court's QDRO o f September 24, 2008, The t r i a l likewise constituted a f i n a l judgment, because i t r e s o l v e d a l l t h e o u t s t a n d i n g between t h e p a r t i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n court's parte divorce DCH R e g ' l App. 1990) The aside See James, o f the t r i a l 713 So. 2d a t 945; E x Med. C t r . , 571 So. 2 d 1162, 1164 ( A l a . C i v . ("[T]he t e s t o f a j u d g m e n t ' s f i n a l i t y i s w h e t h e r i t sufficiently parties."). judgment. issues ascertains and d e c l a r e s the rights of the 2 trial court's i t s September order o f December 24, 2008, 24, 2008, QDRO was n o t a f i n a l setting judgment C f . L i b e r t y Mut. I n s . Co. v . Greenway E n t e r s . , I n c . , [Ms. 2070393, M a r c h 13, 2009] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( " L i b e r t y M u t u a l d i d , h o w e v e r , t i m e l y f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m t h e December 12, 2007, j u d g m e n t . That judgment c o n s t i t u t e s a f i n a l judgment r e g a r d i n g t h e c o l l a t e r a l i s s u e s o f c o s t s a n d a t t o r n e y f e e s t h a t w i l l i t s e l f s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . See James R i v e r C o r p . v . B o l t o n , 14 So. 3 d 868, 871 n.3 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t j u d g m e n t e s t a b l i s h i n g amount o f a t t o r n e y f e e s p r e v i o u s l y a w a r d e d i s a f i n a l j u d g m e n t ) . Hence, L i b e r t y Mutual properly invoked t h i s court's j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h a t award." ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) ) . 2 8 2080353, 2080498 and does not support order e f f e c t i v e l y trial the wife's first because reopened the i s s u e o f implementation f o r the entry of a new QDRO i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e d i v o r c e judgment. appeal, been appeal taken See W h i t e v . D r i v a s , 2006) As s u c h , t h e w i f e ' s order was a f i n a l court. 1121 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . ("A n o n f i n a l o r d e r w i l l n o t s u p p o r t court's first as h a v i n g of the t r i a l 954 So. 2 d 1119, reasons t h a t t h e t r i a l order f o r t h e purpose of no. 2080353, i s due t o be d i s m i s s e d f r o m an i n t e r l o c u t o r y that of the c o u r t ' s d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t ; t h e December 24, 2008, called the appeal an a p p e a l . " ) . For September 24, 2008, QDRO judgment, however, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 26, 2009, QDRO, p u r p o r t i n g t o i m p l e m e n t i t s d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , was a f i n a l judgment t h a t f u l l y s u p p o r t s As a r e s u l t , although the wife's second appeal. t h i s court lacks appellate j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a p p e a l no. 2080353, t h i s c o u r t has a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n over appeal parties w h i c h encompasses a d d r e s s on a p p e a l . the m e r i t s As no. 2080498, of the wife's discussed Thus, we p r o c e e d t o a r e v i e w o f appeal. below, t h e q u e s t i o n whether the p a r t i e s ' settlement the judgment trial court's the issues the before court i s agreement, i n c o r p o r a t e d divorcing 9 this the parties, into was 2080353, 2080498 ambiguous and s u b j e c t t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by t h e t r i a l a l a t e r order. reviews Civ. de App. On T h a t q u e s t i o n i s one novo. Judge v. Judge, appeal, 14 So. 3d 162, the w i f e contends t h a t the t r i a l 165 court (Ala. award t o her court erred t h a t the d i v o r c e judgment i n c o r p o r a t i n g the p a r t i e s ' s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t was ambiguous w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e from the husband's r e t i r e m e n t account. j u d g m e n t was court of law, which t h i s 2009). when i t c o n c l u d e d the court i n improperly f r e e from ambiguity, l o o k e d beyond the she argues, Because the trial language employed i n the j u d g m e n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g what t h e p a r t i e s ' i n t e n d e d w i t h r e g a r d to t h a t award. In Judge v. J u d g e , s u p r a , this " I n R.G. v. G.G., 771 So. 2000), t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d : 2d court 490 wrote: (Ala. Civ. "'"[A] settlement agreement which is i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a d i v o r c e decree i s i n t h e n a t u r e o f a c o n t r a c t . " S m i t h v. S m i t h , 568 So. 2d 838, 839 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . A d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d o r c o n s t r u e d as o t h e r w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t s a r e interpreted or construed. Sartin v. S a r t i n , 678 So. 2d 1181 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). "The words o f t h e a g r e e m e n t a r e t o be g i v e n t h e i r o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g , and t h e i n t e n t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s a r e t o be d e r i v e d f r o m them." I d . a t 1183. W h e t h e r an a g r e e m e n t i s ambiguous i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w 10 App. 2080353, 2080498 f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Wimpee v. Wimpee, 641 So. 2d 287 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) . An a g r e e m e n t t h a t by i t s t e r m s i s p l a i n and f r e e f r o m a m b i g u i t y must be e n f o r c e d as written. J o n e s v. J o n e s , 722 So. 2d 768 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . An a m b i g u i t y e x i s t s i f t h e a g r e e m e n t i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o more t h a n one m e a n i n g . V a i n r i b v. Downey, 565 So. 2d 647 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . However, i f o n l y one r e a s o n a b l e meaning clearly emerges, t h e n t h e a g r e e m e n t i s u n a m b i g u o u s . Id. Finally, i f a p r o v i s i o n of an a g r e e m e n t i s c e r t a i n and c l e a r , i t i s t h e duty of the t r i a l court t o determine i t s m e a n i n g , and t h e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s a f f o r d e d a heavy presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous. I d . ' "771 So. 2d a t 494. See a l s o Ex p a r t e L i t t l e p a g e , 796 So. 2d 298, 301 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; Van A l l e n v. Van A l l e n , 812 So. 2d 1276, 1277 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; and G r a n g e r v. G r a n g e r , 804 So. 2d 217, 219 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 001) . "Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have s t a t e d t h a t a c o u r t w i l l not l o o k beyond the f o u r corners of a w r i t t e n instrument unless the instrument contains latent ambiguities. E.g., M a r t i n v. F i r s t N a t ' l Bank o f M o b i l e , 412 So. 2d 250, 253 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . '[A] l a t e n t a m b i g u i t y i s one t h a t " a p p e a r [ s ] o n l y as the r e s u l t of e x t r i n s i c or c o l l a t e r a l evidence s h o w i n g t h a t a w o r d , t h o u g h t t o have b u t one meaning, actually has two o r more m e a n i n g s . " ' M e y e r , 952 So. 2d a t 392 ( c i t i n g 11 R i c h a r d A. L o r d , W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s § 33:40, a t 816 ( 4 t h e d . 2003))." 14 So. 3d a t 165-66. 11 2080353, 2080498 In Jardine v. Jardine, 918 So. 2d 127 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), t h i s c o u r t r e v i e w e d a judgment of d i v o r c e t h a t , because of fluctuations in perform. awarded The the retirement the divorce wife an accounts markets, had become impossible j u d g m e n t a t i s s u e , among o t h e r amount and equal awarded to 45% the of things, parties' 55% husband the of those a c c o u n t s , w i t h t h e b a l a n c e s i n t h o s e a c c o u n t s d e t e r m i n e d as June 30, 2001. appropriate A f t e r the QDROs division of the accounts declined substantial judgment. decline were entered retirement accounts, value of the court both held wife the The parties i n Jardine but value parties regarding of dividing would bear of the those accounts judgment. She on accounts. retirement this effects court, of the contending t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s order c o n s t i t u t e d a m o d i f i c a t i o n of divorce the accounts. appealed to the the in divorce the e f f e c t of judgment d i v i d i n g t h o s e in the engaged the of before accomplish p a r t i e s ' retirement that, f l u c t u a t i o n s i n the value The could o f t h e i s s u e s t h a t a r o s e was i n the trial entered, accounts, litigation the p o r t i o n of the d i v o r c e The that significantly. postjudgment One j u d g m e n t was to argued 12 that she was entitled to the an 2080353, 2080498 amount e q u a l accounts t o 45% as of of the June 30, c e r t a i n t h a t was value 2001, of the which, she parties' a r g u e d , was that the divorce subject to divorce judgment division event that 30, 2001, time the This the the was "did not retirement the trial accounts of court, the court therefore because address the proper parties o f t h o s e a c c o u n t s as the in of e v e n t u a l l y made." 918 So. 2d at the June no l o n g e r a v a i l a b l e f o r a 55/45 d i v i s i o n a t was sum changes This a m b i g u o u s , and specifically aggregate value division court j u d g m e n t was i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by of a n o t s u b j e c t t o m o d i f i c a t i o n b a s e d on i n the v a l u e s of the p a r t i e s ' r e t i r e m e n t accounts. held retirement the 132. continued: "Clearly, i n s i t u a t i o n s where a t r i a l court's judgment i s not s u s c e p t i b l e to performance as w r i t t e n , c o u r t s have t h e a u t h o r i t y and t h e d u t y t o interpret, implement, and enforce and even to augment t h o s e j u d g m e n t s so as t o e f f e c t u a t e the c o u r t ' s o r i g i n a l i n t e n t (even i f t h a t i n t e n t was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y and e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d i n t h e j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e t h e c o u r t saw no n e e d t o a t t e m p t t o a d d r e s s the i n f i n i t e v a r i e t y of p o s s i b l e circumstances that m i g h t e x i s t i n t h e e v e n t i t s j u d g m e n t was not implemented p r o m p t l y ) . " 918 So. court's 2d at 136. Thus, this court i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the d i v o r c e 13 affirmed judgment. the trial 2080353, In 2080498 Buchanan v . B u c h a n a n , 936 So. 2d 1084 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005), decided addressed account. a few months a f t e r an i s s u e related I n Buchanan, a Jardine, this to the d i v i s i o n judgment court of a divorcing again retirement the p a r t i e s i n c o r p o r a t e d an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s t h a t p r o v i d e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e w i f e w o u l d " ' r e c e i v e , as o f t h e d a t e o f the final Husband's [judgment], one-half 401(k) r e t i r e m e n t (^) o f t h e e x i s t i n g s h a r e s o f account.'" 936 So. 2d a t 1085. Three years a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment, t h e w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n t o have t h e h u s b a n d h e l d i n c o n t e m p t f o r h a v i n g failed account. to t r a n s f e r to her her p o r t i o n of h i s retirement A t a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n , e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t account had d e c l i n e d i n value from a p p r o x i m a t e l y j u d g m e n t t o $43,000. was required $77, 000 a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e The t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e husband to t r a n s f e r to the wife from h i s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t an amount e q u a l t o h a l f o f i t s v a l u e as o f t h e d a t e o f the d i v o r c e judgment. The h u s b a n d i n B u c h a n a n a p p e a l e d , arguing that the t r i a l c o u r t , i n i t s s u b s e q u e n t o r d e r , h a d a w a r d e d t h e w i f e 88.4% o f t h e v a l u e o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t when t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t 14 2080353, 2080498 had only provided f o r an account t o the w i f e . court award Reversing o f 50% o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t the t r i a l court's order, this wrote: "A r e v i e w o f t h e p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s o f t h i s court and o f cases from other jurisdictions i n d i c a t e s t h a t when a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t awards a spouse a p e r c e n t a g e s h a r e o f a v a r i a b l e a s s e t and the award i s silent with respect t o market fluctuations i n the value of the asset before the time o f d i s t r i b u t i o n , t h e judgment i s i n h e r e n t l y ambiguous; i f t h e spouses a r e e q u a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d e l a y i n d i s t r i b u t i o n , e a c h s p o u s e assumes a p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e o f any s u b s e q u e n t g a i n s o r l o s s e s i n t h e a s s e t u n t i l s u c h t i m e as t h e s h a r e i s d i s t r i b u t e d , and t h a t i s t r u e even i f t h e judgment awards a s p o u s e a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e a s s e t on a s p e c i f i c d a t e . " 936 So. 2d a t 1087. T h i s c o u r t c o n c l u d e d that the t r i a l court e r r e d when i t a w a r d e d t h e w i f e , i n i t s s u b s e q u e n t o r d e r , of the value o f t h e husband's account as c a l c u l a t e d on t h e date o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment. The support that I d . a t 1089. p a r t i e s i n t h i s case argue a t l e n g t h i n t h e i r over whether this court's holdings the t r i a l court's determination the p a r t i e s ' agreement d i v i d i n g ambiguous with regard retirement account. involved a situation to i n Jardine briefs and Buchanan i n the present the m a r i t a l assets the d i v i s i o n of the i n which the p a r t i e s ' case was husband's We d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e y do n o t . 15 half Jardine a g r e e m e n t as t o t h e 2080353, 2080498 d i v i s i o n o f t h e i r r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s was " a m b i g u o u s " b e c a u s e it became impossible to accounts changed. perform There is no once the such values of the impossibility of p e r f o r m a n c e a l l e g e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , and t h e r e i s no b a s i s on which to conclude that the parties' agreement i n the p r e s e n t c a s e c a n n o t be p e r f o r m e d as w r i t t e n . Buchanan, the case on which the trial court relied, p r e s e n t s a more i n t e r e s t i n g c o m p a r i s o n , b u t we c o n c l u d e it likewise Unlike does not control t h e outcome of t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e agreement a t i s s u e provided to the wife a percentage comprising the husband's this appeal. i n Buchanan o f t h e number o f retirement account. that shares Although the v a l u e o f t h o s e s h a r e s was shown t o have f l u c t u a t e d b e t w e e n t h e d a t e on w h i c h t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d and t h e d a t e o f t h e h e a r i n g on t h e w i f e ' s c o n t e m p t m o t i o n , t h e a g r e e m e n t d i d n o t p r o v i d e t h a t e i t h e r t h e number o f s h a r e s t o be a w a r d e d t o the w i f e or the value of the r e t i r e m e n t account i n which the shares were h e l d was t o be v a l u e d as o f a p a r t i c u l a r day. I n s t e a d , t h e a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e w i f e was t o r e c e i v e h a l f o f t h e s h a r e s i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t as o f the date of the divorce judgment. 16 On appeal, half of the 2080353, 2080498 s h a r e s i n t h a t a c c o u n t a t t h e t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e judgment i s exactly what t h i s court held that the w i f e was entitled to r e c e i v e , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the v a l u a t i o n of those shares a t the time of distribution. 3 I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e a g r e e d t h a t t h e w i f e w o u l d r e c e i v e $600,000 f r o m t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e t i r e m e n t account, w i t h the husband t o r e t a i n the remainder of the funds i n t h e a c c o u n t a f t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e $600,000 t o t h e w i f e . The language the parties agreement i s not ambiguous. in writing how g a i n s and employed in their settlement True, the p a r t i e s d i d not s e t out losses accruing to the a c c o u n t w o u l d be a l l o c a t e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s . husband's However, by I t i s t r u e , as t h e h u s b a n d i n t h i s c a s e p o i n t s o u t , t h a t t h i s c o u r t wrote i n Buchanan t h a t a judgment i s " i n h e r e n t l y a m b i g u o u s " when i t awards a s p o u s e a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e v a l u e o f an a c c o u n t on a s p e c i f i c d a t e . The h u s b a n d i n t e r p r e t s t h a t s t a t e m e n t as p r o v i d i n g t h a t an award t o a s p o u s e f r o m t h e o t h e r s p o u s e ' s r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t t h a t does n o t a c c o u n t f o r f u t u r e f l u c t u a t i o n s i n t h e v a l u e o f t h e a c c o u n t i s ambiguous, e v e n i f a sum c e r t a i n i s a w a r d e d f r o m t h a t a c c o u n t . The l a n g u a g e i n Buchanan on w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d r e l i e s , however, i s d i c t a , i . e . , was u n n e c e s s a r y t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h a t a p p e a l , b e c a u s e , as p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , t h e s p o u s e i n Buchanan was awarded s h a r e s f r o m t h e a c c o u n t and t h e j u d g m e n t d i d n o t p r o v i d e t h a t t h o s e s h a r e s w o u l d be v a l u e d as o f a p a r t i c u l a r d a t e . As a r e s u l t , t h a t l a n g u a g e has no b e a r i n g on t h e p r o p e r outcome o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . See K n i g h t v. S t a t e , 273 A l a . 480, 486, 142 So. 2d 899, 905 ( 1 9 6 2 ) . 3 17 2080353, 2080498 setting f o r t h a sum c e r t a i n t h a t was t o be p a i d to the wife, the p a r t i e s i m p l i c i t l y determined t h a t the husband alone would bear the r i s k o f any benefit f r o m any parties were decrease i n the value increase free to i n the have value of h i s account of h i s account. a l l o c a t e d the risk of l o s s e s o t h e r w i s e , by, f o r e x a m p l e , e x p r e s s i n g t h e to the wife in terms of a retirement account at explicitly stating that proportionate share percentage the of time the gains of parties and gains value of the or by would losses bear accruing the date of the d i s t r i b u t i o n to the w i f e . they d i d not that the do. wife Instead, was retirement account. not ambiguous, the to at 165. to trial In $600, 000 c o u r t was T h i s , however, from the not p e r m i t t e d t o m a t e r i a l t h a t was to not of the p a r t i e s ' agreement. so the judgment husband's Because the language i n the agreement w i t h i n the four corners 3d their t h e y w r o t e , i n unambiguous t e r m s , receive t h e a g r e e m e n t by r e f e r e n c e So. and distribution account between the date of the e n t r y of the d i v o r c e and The distribution of the or doing, reversal. 18 the trial court was construe contained Judge, 14 erred to 2080353, 2080498 We r e c o g n i z e , as t h e h u s b a n d p o i n t s o u t i n h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , t h a t t h e r e i s a l i n e o f cases from o t h e r w i t h which Hull, our h o l d i n g i s i n tension. 695 N.E.2d 181 (Ind. N.W.2d 692 (S.D. distinguishable research 2003). from discloses of case. o f cases c o n c l u s i o n a t w h i c h we a r r i v e . Greenwood v . a n d Duran v . D u r a n , 657 Many the present a line See, e.g., B i t n e r v. C t . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; Greenwood, 746 A . 2 d 358 (Me. 2 0 0 0 ) ; jurisdictions that those are Moreover, 4 cases our fully support the See, e.g., H a r r i s v. H a r r i s , 162 N.C. App. 5 1 1 , 591 S.E.2d 560 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ; V e i d t v . Cook, (No. CA2003-08-209, (Ohio C t . App. 2004) ( n o t p u b l i s h e d ) ; In r e Marriage o f Knutson, 114 Wash. App. 866, 60 P.3d June 2 1 , 2004) 681 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; a n d S c h i n n e r v . S c h i n n e r , 143 W i s . 2 d 81, 420 N.W.2d 381 ( C t . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . Our r e v i e w o f a l l o f t h o s e cases f u r t h e r c o n v i n c e s us t h a t the language the p a r t i e s employed i n their s e t t l e m e n t agreement i s n o t ambiguous. F o r example, t h e language o f t h e d i v o r c e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t a t i s s u e i n Greenwood i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e lump-sum payment t o t h e w i f e f r o m t h e h u s b a n d ' s p e n s i o n p l a n was e q u a l t o 50% o f t h e v a l u e o f t h a t p a r t o f t h e p e n s i o n p l a n c o n s t i t u t i n g m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . No s u c h l a n g u a g e i n t r o d u c i n g a p e r c e n t a g e b a s i s f o r t h e award from the husband's r e t i r e m e n t account e x i s t s i n t h e present case. 4 19 2080353, 2080498 Based parties' on the foregoing, agreement dividing ambiguous, t h e t r i a l plain the we their that, marital property l a n g u a g e o f t h a t a g r e e m e n t i n an e f f o r t parties' so, intent and, as because the was with regard a result, to the The t r i a l we reverse to search division of c o u r t ' s QDRO o f J a n u a r y cause t o t h e t r i a l 2080353 25, the trial 25, the court's vacate 26, 2009; and we remand t h e court. -- APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION OF 2009, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; APPEAL 2080498 out c o u r t e r r e d when i t December 24, 2008, o r d e r v a c a t i n g i t s o r i g i n a l QDRO; we the t r i a l not c o u r t was n o t p e r m i t t e d t o go b e h i n d t h e husband's r e t i r e m e n t account. did conclude -- APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION OF SEPTEMBER DISMISSED. SEPTEMBER 2009, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; DECEMBER 24, 2008, ORDER REVERSED; JANUARY 2 6, 2 00 9, JUDGMENT VACATED; AND REMANDED. Pittman Bryan, and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . J . , concurs Moore, J . , c o n c u r s specially. i n the r e s u l t , without 20 writing. CAUSE 2080353, 2080498 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g specially. I w r i t e s p e c i a l l y to note t h a t I b e l i e v e t h a t the court wife c o r r e c t l y i n f e r r e d t h e p a r t i e s ' i n t e n t i o n s -was to retirement main receive opinion parties agreement that the was the in a of gains parties' divorce regarding settlement allocation the funds in agreement u n a m b i g u o u s . As the a v o i d the u n f o r t u n a t e in of the that division circumstances agreement and who of reach a the their points settlement martial property could o f t h i s c a s e by i n c l u d i n g specific terms losses i n retirement 21 dividing the main o p i n i o n action the husband's a c c o u n t . However, I a g r e e w i t h t h e h o l d i n g o f marital property out, 35.5% trial regarding accounts. the

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.