COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
THOMAS O. PETREE
v. Record No. 0603-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
MARIE T. PETREE OCTOBER 17, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge
(Janet E. Brown, on brief), for appellant.
(Gail H. Miller; Smith & Miller, on brief), for
appellee.
Thomas O. Petree (husband) appeals the decision of the
circuit court entering a qualified domestic relations order
naming Marie T. Petree (wife) as the alternative payee for
pension benefits due husband from his pension. Husband contends
that the court erred in construing the parties' property
settlement agreement to give wife an interest in the Kemper
National Retirement Plan. 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,
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
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.
At the ore tenus hearing, husband admitted that at the time
the parties entered into the agreement, he was a participant in
only one retirement plan and he did not know the plan's precise
name. In the settlement agreement signed by the parties in 1987,
the parties referred to husband's retirement plan as the "Kemper
Corporation Retirement Plan." The plan in which husband actually
is a participant is the "Kemper National Retirement Plan."
"'The tendency of the courts is to give to contracts life
and virility by interpretation of their fair intendment--not to
destroy them.'" Jennings v. Jennings, 12 Va. App. 1187, 1194,
409 S.E.2d 8, 13 (1991) (citation omitted). The plain reading of
the agreement indicates that husband and wife agreed that wife
was entitled to fifty percent of husband's retirement benefits.
Under husband's proffered interpretation of the agreement, he
agreed to share with wife fifty percent of something in which he
had no interest, while presumably retaining an undiminished
interest in his full pension benefits. This interpretation is
inconsistent with the stated purpose of the agreement to "settle
all rights, interests, and obligations between them" and "in
complete and final settlement of the interests of each in any
- 2 -
property, estate or interest of the other."
- 3 -
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 4 -