In re Marriage Lueken

Decision Date21 October 2008
Docket NumberNo. ED 91086.,ED 91086.
Citation267 S.W.3d 800
PartiesIn re the MARRIAGE of Virgil L. LUEKEN and Toni S. Lueken. Virgil L. Lueken, Appellant/Petitioner, v. Toni S. LUEKEN, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Craig E. Hellmann, Zachary W. Rennick, Washington, MO, for appellant.

Jonathan L. Downard, Union, MO, for respondents.

KENNETH M. ROMINES, Judge.

Introduction

This is a domestic relations case. Our inquiry concerns whether the trial court, by entering an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), modified the court's original order of distribution of marital property in violation of RSMo. section 452.330.5 (2000)1. We find that by entering the amended QDRO, the trial court improperly modified the dissolution decree. Thus, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court enter and maintain an amended QDRO consistent with the language of the dissolution decree.

Facts and Procedural History

Virgil L. Lueken ("Husband") and Toni S. Lueken ("Wife") were married on 21 November 1970. After almost thirty years of marriage, Husband and Wife separated on or about 8 January 1999. On 7 February 2000, the trial court entered a Judgment and Decree of Legal Separation, in which Husband and Wife stipulated that "Wife shall receive 50% of Husband's pension/retirement value as of 12/7/1999." Thereafter, the trial court entered an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). On 23 May 2001, the trial court entered a Judgment converting the decree of separation into a Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage ("dissolution decree"). On 29 May 2001, the court set aside the amended QDRO.

Thereafter, six more amended QDRO's were entered, making seven amended QDROs in total.2 The seventh amended QDRO allowed increased benefits to Wife if Husband elected an early retirement package or if the plan paid a cost-of-living increase or any other postretirement benefit increase. Husband appeals the entering of the seventh amended QDRO to this court, arguing that the trial court improperly entered the QDRO, in that the order granted Wife additional benefits from Husband's retirement plan contrary to the express language in the couple's dissolution decree.

Standard of Review

The sole issue before this Court is whether, by way of the seventh amended QDRO, the trial court modified the court's original dissolution decree in violation of section 452.330.5. As in any court-tried case, we will affirm the trial court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Interpretation of the parties' settlement agreement and QDRO language is an issue of law, which we review de novo. See Eveland v. Eveland, 156 S.W.3d 366, 369 (Mo.App. E.D.2004); Wood v. Wood, 2 S.W.3d 134, 138 (Mo.App. S.D.1999).

Discussion

Husband argues that the trial court's entering of the seventh amended QDRO violated section 452.330, in that the QDRO granted Wife increased benefits contrary to the language of the original dissolution decree. Under Missouri law, once a decree or judgment for dissolution of marriage becomes final, the property provisions of the decree generally are not modifiable. Ochoa v. Ochoa, 71 S.W.3d 593, 595 (Mo. banc 2002); RSMo. section 452.330.5. The trial court may modify an order "intended to be" a QDRO only for one of the following purposes: (1) to establish or maintain the QDRO's status as "qualified" under a particular plan, or (2) to conform its terms to effectuate the intent of the court's order regarding distribution of property. See section 452.330.5. We find that the seventh amended QDRO modified the dissolution decree in violation of section 452.330.5 and that neither exception justifies the entering of the QDRO.

To begin our analysis, we first look to the language of the two documents. The language in the Judgment and Decree of Legal Separation, which was incorporated into the dissolution decree, states that, "Wife shall receive 50% of Husband's pension/retirement value as of 12/7/1999." The language in the seventh amended QDRO states:

"If the participant [Husband] retires prior to his/her normal retirement date and receives subsidized early retirement pension benefits from the Plan, then after the participant's retirement, the amount of the alternate payee's [Wife] benefit payments . . . [w]ill be increased by a share of the early retirement subsidies, in the proportion specified above in this paragraph 6.A."

The seventh amended QDRO further states:

"If the Plan pays a cost-of-living increase or any other post-retirement benefit increase to the participant, the amount of the alternate payee's benefit payments . . . [w]ill be increased by a share of such post-retirement benefit increase, in the proportion specified above in this paragraph 6.A."

It is clear from the plain and ordinary meaning of the language that the seventh amended QDRO modifies the language in the dissolution decree. In paragraph 4 of the dissolution decree, the parties stipulate that "Wife shall receive 50% of Husband's pension/retirement value as of 12/7/1999." Conversely, the language in the seventh amended QDRO grants Wife additional benefits that would accrue after 12/7/1999, namely, subsidized early retirement benefits and any other post-retirement benefit increase. These changes would give wife additional benefits not agreed to in the dissolution decree. This modifies the original dissolution decree in violation of section 452.330.5.

Having recognized this modification, we note that section 452.330.5 gives the circuit court authority to modify "orders intended to be qualified domestic relations orders affecting pension[s] [. . .] only for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order." Neither of these exceptions applies here.

Regarding the first exception, neither party argues that the trial court entered the seventh amended QDRO for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the order as a QDRO, nor is there any evidence in the record suggesting the trial court entered the seventh QDRO for this purpose. Thus, the first exception does not apply.

We thus turn to the second exception to consider whether the trial court entered the seventh amended QDRO in order to "effectuate the expressed intent of the order." See section 452.330.5. To do this we look to the original order to determine the express intent of the parties.

Under Missouri law, normal rules of contract construction apply to interpretation of settlement agreements. Blackman v. Blackman, 767 S.W.2d 54, 59 (Mo.App. W.D.1989) (citing Press Machinery Corp. v. Smith R.P.M. Corp., 727 F.2d 781, 784 (8th Cir.1984)). Crucial to the construction of the settlement agreement is the intent of the parties. Id. Whether a contract is ambiguous, is a question of law. Id. In determining whether a contract is ambiguous, the court must consider the whole instrument and the natural and ordinary meaning of the language. Id. The mere fact that the parties disagree on the subject does not render the document itself ambiguous. Enyeart v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 693 S.W.2d 120, 123 (Mo.App. W.D.1985). The test is whether the disputed language, in the context of the entire agreement, is reasonably susceptible of more than one construction giving the words their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a reasonable, average person. Id. The court's role is to determine the intention as manifested not by what the parties now say they intended,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Saint Luke's Hosp. of Kan. City v. Benefit Mgmt. Consultants, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 13, 2021
    ... ... See In re Marriage of Lueken , 267 S.W.3d 800, 803 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (citing to Enyeart v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. , 693 S.W.2d 120, 123 (Mo. App. W.D. 1985) ). In ... ...
  • Withers v. City Of Lake Saint Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 21, 2010
    ... ... TAP Pharmaceutical Prods. Inc. v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 238 S.W.3d 140, 143 (Mo. banc 2007); ... In re Marriage of Lueken, 267 S.W.3d 800, 803 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). The law presumes the contract is the final memorial of the parties' agreement, and it ... ...
  • WITHERS V. CITY Of LAKE SAINT LOUIS
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 2010
    ... ... TAP Pharmaceutical Prods. Inc. v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 238 S.W.3d 140, 143 (Mo. banc 2007); In re Marriage of Lueken, 267 S.W.3d 800, 803 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). The law presumes the contract is the final memorial of the parties' agreement, and it ... ...
  • In re the Marriage of Richard v. Green And Sigrid v. Green.Richard v. Green
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 2011
    ... ... We review the trial court's decision modifying a QDRO pursuant to Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). See Bradley v. Bradley, 194 S.W.3d 902, 906 (Mo.App.2006). Interpretation of a dissolution judgment and a QDRO is an issue of law that we review de novo. In re Marriage of Lueken, 267 S.W.3d 800, 801 (Mo.App.2008).I. Authority to Enter QDRO IV For his first point, husband contends that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority when it entered QDRO IV to modify QDRO I because the amendment did not serve to establish or maintain the order as a QDRO or to effectuate ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Section 7.15 Division of Personal Property
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Family Law (2014 Supp) Chapter 7 Separation Agreements
    • Invalid date
    ...directed that the QDRO be revised to reflect the valuation date set forth in the original judgment. See also In re Marriage of Lueken, 267 S.W.3d 800 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). Note: Form language for dividing retirement assets often consists of something similar to this: The parties have agreed......
  • Section 16.15 Marital and Nonmarital Interests
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Family Law (2014 Supp) Chapter 16 Pensions and Deferred Compensation
    • Invalid date
    ...marital settlement agreement. To the contrary, the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals, in In re Marriage of Lueken, 267 S.W.3d 800 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008), determined that modification of the original QDRO would be improper because the decree of legal separation stated that the ......
  • Section 7.15 Separation Agreement Clauses?Division of Personal Property
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Family Law (2014 Forms) Chapter 7
    • Invalid date
    ...directed that the QDRO be revised to reflect the valuation date set forth in the original judgment. See also In re Marriage of Lueken, 267 S.W.3d 800 (Mo. App. E.D. Note: Form language for dividing retirement assets often consists of something similar to this: The parties have agreed that a......
  • Section 23.17 Qualified Domestic Relations Orders
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Family Law (2014 Supp) Chapter 23 Postdissolution Matters
    • Invalid date
    ...judgment. The court is without jurisdiction to expand one spouse’s marital interest in the asset with a QDRO. In re Marriage of Lueken, 267 S.W.3d 800 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). But see Redlinger v. Redlinger, 111 S.W.3d 413 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008), in which the appellate court affirmed the trial c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT