Opinion
Record No. 1614-94-4
Decided: March 28, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, Donald H. Kent, Judge
(Peter M. Baskin; Pelton, Balland, Young, Demsky, Baskin O'Malie, on brief), for appellant.
(John P. Snider; Matthews, Snider Williams, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Thomas E. McGlathery (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit court that Sharron A. McGlathery (wife) is entitled to a portion of husband's disability retirement benefits. Husband argues that the trial court erred in finding that the parties intended to include disability benefits under the terms of the their Property Settlement Agreement (Agreement). Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
"Property settlement and support agreements are subject to the same rules of construction and interpretation applicable to contracts generally." Fry v. Schwarting, 4 Va. App. 173, 180, 355 S.E.2d 342, 346 (1987). "[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." Id.
The relevant paragraph of the parties' Agreement provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
13. Retirement Benefits.
The Husband acknowledges that he is entitled to receive retirement benefits and pensions through his employment with the Arlington County Fire Department. The Husband agrees that the Wife is entitled to a monetary award from the pension benefits, if, as, and when received by the Husband said award being a sum of money equal to fifty (50%) percent of each payment received, multiplied by a fraction . . . .
Husband left his employment on full disability and received payments pursuant to the Arlington County Fire Department's Service Connected Disability Retirement Plan. Disability retirement benefits are paid at a higher rate than standard retirement benefits. At the end of 500 weeks of disability retirement benefits, husband will be eligible to receive his regular retirement benefits. Husband admitted that his disability retirement benefits were paid through a pension plan that was in existence during the marriage.
Under the terms of the Agreement, the parties acknowledged that "retirement benefits and pensions" were accrued by husband during the marriage as a result of his employment and that wife was entitled to a share of those "pension benefits . . . if, as, and when received by the Husband . . . ." As noted by the trial court, the Agreement used the plural "benefits and pensions" when referring to the employment-related retirement. While neither "disability retirement plan" or "disability retirement" appear explicitly in the parties' Agreement, it was a type of retirement benefit husband possessed at the time the agreement was signed. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's determination that wife was entitled to a share of husband's disability retirement benefits under the terms of the parties' Agreement.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.