Opinion
Record No. 1781-93-4
April 26, 1994
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY JACK B. STEVENS, JUDGE
(Robert K. Thompson; Thompson Fourqurean, on briefs), for appellant.
(Edward V. O'Connor, Jr.; Lewis, Dack, Paradiso, O'Connor Good, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Clifton T. Hilderley, Jr., (husband) appeals the decision of the trial court ordering him to pay Maxine J. Hilderley (wife) spousal support arrearages. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
Husband raises one issue on appeal: whether the property settlement agreement signed by the parties in 1967 was unenforceable because it was not incorporated into the final decree of divorce.
"[O]n appeal if all the evidence which is necessary to construe a contract was presented to the trial court and is before the reviewing court, the meaning and effect of the contract is a question of law which can readily be ascertained by this court." Fry v. Schwarting, 4 Va. App. 173, 180, 355 S.E.2d 342, 346 (1987).
In pertinent part, the parties' 1969 final decree of divorce stated the following:
the parties hereto entered into a property settlement agreement, dated the 1st day of December, 1967, whereby all questions of property right, custody and support of the infant child of the parties and other rights growing out of the marriage relation have been determined and settled; it is, therefore,
* * * * * * *
ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that the property settlement agreement entered into between the parties hereto, dated the 1st day of December, 1967, be, and the same hereby is, approved, ratified and confirmed and made a part of this decree as though the provisions of the same were written herein verbatim . . . .
A court's jurisdiction to provide for spousal support, like its jurisdiction to provide for child support, is statutory.See id. at 178, 355 S.E.2d at 344-45; Code § 20-107.1. When divorcing parties resolve issues of support or property distribution through a separate agreement, the terms of the agreement are enforceable through the divorce court only to the extent, if any, the final decree includes those terms.See Code § 20-109.1. Mere court approval of an agreement does not give the terms the effect of a court order.
In this instance, although the divorce court did not use the word "incorporate," it nonetheless effectively incorporated the agreement in its entirety into the final decree through the use of the words "made a part of this decree as though the provisions of the same were written herein verbatim . . . ." Thus, the court's jurisdiction to enforce its order included the authority to enforce the terms of the agreement. See Fry, 4 Va. App. at 178-79, 355 S.E.2d at 344-45; cf. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 1 Va. App. 87, 91, 334 S.E.2d 595, 597 (1985) (court "approved, ratified and confirmed" agreement but did not make agreement enforceable as part of final decree).
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court enforcing the agreement is affirmed.
Affirmed.