Marriage of Thomason, In re

• Decision Date: 23 November 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89CA1205,89CA1205
• Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Vickie A. THOMASON, Appellee, and Robert E. Thomason, Appellant. . I
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 1189

802 P.2d 1189

In re the MARRIAGE OF Vickie A. THOMASON, Appellee,

and

Robert E. Thomason, Appellant.

No. 89CA1205.

Colorado Court of Appeals,

Div. I.

Nov. 23, 1990.

William J. Walsh, Lakewood, for appellee.

Wedgle & Shpall, P.C., Richard J. Wedgle, Murray Wilkening, Denver, for appellant.

Opinion by Judge PIERCE.

Robert E. Thomason, husband, appeals the order of the trial court amending the language of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). We reverse.

A separation agreement reached by the parties was approved by the court and incorporated in a decree of dissolution on April 28, 1989. Later, the district court approved a QDRO submitted by husband. Vickie A. Thomason, wife, filed an objection to that order and argued that certain additional language should have been included in the QDRO in order to prevent a significant tax liability to her. She asserted that the amendment was necessary to conform the QDRO to the intent of the parties that she felt was expressed in the separation agreement.

The trial court, without further comment, sustained wife's objection based on the language in paragraphs 15(a) and 16(a) of the separation agreement. As proposed by wife, it therefore added language to the QDRO that husband would reimburse or otherwise hold wife harmless from any income tax that she becomes liable for as a result of the transfer of the $87,500.

Husband contends that the result of this amendment was impermissibly to modify the agreement of the parties, contrary to the plain language of the separation agreement, and in the absence of the existence of conditions justifying the reopening of a judgment. We agree.

Paragraph 16(a) of the separation agreement, located in the section of the agreement dividing the marital property, provided that wife:

"shall be entitled to the sum of $87,500 which will be conveyed from the [husband's] Occidental savings plan. Said monies will be transferred through a [Q]ualified Domestic Relations Order ... said monies will be transferred to [wife] within ninety days ... wife shall be entitled to said funds and all other property listed in this paragraph as and for her own property absent any claim from the husband."

Paragraph 15(a), located within the section labeled "income tax matters," provided that all transfers of property set forth in the agreement were transfers of marital property in exchange for marital rights and considerations and that, therefore, the transfers were not a taxable event and resulted in no capital gains.

Interpretation of a written contract is a question of law for the court. Pepcol Manufacturing Co. v. Denver Union Corp., 687 P.2d 1310 (Colo.1984).

The intent of the parties to a contract is to be determined from the contract language itself, and extrinsic evidence of intent is relevant only if, after examination of the entire agreement, the terms are ambiguous. In re Marriage of Anderson, 711 P.2d 699 (Colo.App.1985). The sole fact that the parties disagree as to the meaning of the terms of a contract does not itself create an ambiguity. If a contract is unambiguous, it must be enforced in accordance with the expressed intention of the parties. Radiology Professional Corp. v. Trinidad Area Health Ass'n, 195 Colo. 253, 577 P.2d 748 (1978).

To determine if an ambiguity exists, the language of the agreement must be construed by application of the accepted meaning of the words with reference to all its provisions. The nature of the...