Pendleton v. Pendleton
| Decision Date | 11 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 2055-95-2,2055-95-2 |
| Citation | 22 Va.App. 503,471 S.E.2d 783 |
| Parties | Raymond A. PENDLETON v. Evelyn M. PENDLETON. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Donald K. Butler (Morano, Colan & Butler, on brief), Richmond, for appellant.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Present: MOON, C.J., and COLEMAN, J., and COLE, Senior Judge.
In this appeal, the husband contends that the trial court erred by ordering an increase in his spousal support obligation. He asserts that Code § 20-109 1 precluded the court from modifying spousal support where, as here, the parties contractually agreed upon the amount of spousal support in their property settlement agreement and the agreement had been approved and incorporated into the final divorce decree. We agree and reverse the trial court's modification decree.
Raymond A. Pendleton (husband) and Evelyn M. Pendleton (wife) separated in July 1986. They entered into a property settlement agreement, as amended, that divided all of their property and an amended agreement in which they divided their property and included a requirement that husband pay wife spousal support in the amount of $250 per week. The agreement provided that the court could modify spousal support only if husband suffered a reduction in wages as a result of involuntary termination or a medical or physical disability. 2 By order dated February 12, 1992, the trial court "affirmed, ratified, and incorporated" the parties' agreement into the final decree.
Husband and wife amended the settlement agreement on May 19, 1992 to require husband to pay wife an additional $175 per month in spousal support. This amendment expressly provided that husband's spousal support obligation was not otherwise altered or amended under the settlement agreement and the additional $175 was for the purpose of enabling wife to purchase medical and hospitalization insurance.
On January 4, 1995, wife filed a motion requesting an increase in spousal support. Husband filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the agreement and provisions of Code § 20-109 precluded the court from being able to modify spousal support. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. At the modification hearing, wife presented evidence which showed that her monthly expenses exceeded her monthly income. The trial court ordered an increase in spousal support from $250 to $350 per week, plus the additional $175 per month that the parties had included in the amended property settlement agreement in May 1992.
Code § 20-109 authorizes the trial court to modify spousal support and maintenance upon the petition of either party if the court determines that there has been a material change in circumstances that justifies a modification. See Hollowell v. Hollowell, 6 Va.App. 417, 419, 369 S.E.2d 451, 452 (1988). However, where the parties contract or stipulate to the amount of spousal support and that agreement is filed without objection prior to the entry of the final divorce decree, "no decree or order directing the payment of support and maintenance for the spouse ... shall be entered except in accordance with that stipulation or contract." Code § 20-109 (emphasis added). Parties who are sui juris may bilaterally contract and bind themselves to the amount of spousal support that one spouse shall be obligated to pay and to the amount that the other shall be entitled to receive. Accordingly, where, as here, the parties have agreed to a sum of spousal support and the agreement has been incorporated into the final decree of divorce, the trial court does not have the authority to modify support, except as provided in the agreement. Parrillo v. Parrillo, 1 Va.App. 226, 228, 336 S.E.2d 23, 24 (1985).
Here, husband and wife entered into a valid settlement agreement which specified the amount of spousal support he would pay and she would receive. Wife did not object when the trial court affirmed, ratified, and incorporated the agreement into the final divorce decree. The trial court held that it could modify the agreement because it contained the provision that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toni v. Toni
...In re Marriage of Pearson, 291 Mont. 101, 965 P.2d 268, 274 (1998) (construing Mont.Code Ann. § 40-4-201(6)); Pendleton v. Pendleton, 22 Va. App. 503, 471 S.E.2d 783, 784 (1996) (construing Va.Code Ann. § 20-109); Yearout v. Yearout, 41 Wash.App. 897, 707 P.2d 1367, 1369 (1985) (construing ......
-
Williams v. Williams, Record No. 1176-08-2 (Va. App. 7/21/2009)
...Va. App. at 727, 674 S.E.2d at ___; Blackburn v. Michael, 30 Va. App. 95, 100, 515 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1999); Pendleton v. Pendleton, 22 Va. App. 503, 507, 471 S.E.2d 783, 785 (1996). Finally, "[i]n construing the terms of a property settlement agreement, just as in construing the terms of any......
-
Blackburn v. Michael
...support award according to the terms of a stipulation or contract signed by the parties. See e.g., Pendleton v. Pendleton, 22 Va.App. 503, 506-07, 471 S.E.2d 783, 784-85 (1996) (holding that parties may bind themselves to a spousal support agreement which limits the judicial authority to mo......
-
Pappas v. Pappas, Record No. 2351-03-4 (VA 8/17/2004)
...trial court lacked authority to award spousal support contrary to the terms of the parties' agreement. See Pendleton v. Pendleton, 22 Va. App. 503, 507, 471 S.E.2d 783, 784 (1996). Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's decision that it lacked authority under the terms of the PS......