Fred W. Grice v. Linda D. Grice ( 1995 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
FRED W. GRICE
v. Record No. 1939-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
LINDA D. GRICE JUNE 6, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF MARTINSVILLE
B. A. Davis, III, Judge Designate
(John L. Gregory, III; Young, Haskins, Mann & Gregory,
on brief), for appellant.
(Thomas N. Key; Neil E. McNally; Key & Tatel, on
brief), for appellee.
Fred W. Grice (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit
court interpreting the Property Settlement Agreement (Agreement)
husband signed with Linda D. Grice (wife). Husband contends the
Agreement allowed husband to reduce his child support payments by
one-half when the parties' son moved out of wife's home and into
his home. 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
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
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 Agreement was executed on July 11, 1989 and incorporated
into the final decree of divorce entered on March 2, 1990. The
Agreement provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
Husband agrees to pay to Wife, to be
confirmed by the Court as a unitary award for
support, the sum of Seven Hundred Dollars
($700.00) per month . . . with said sum
increasing to Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00)
per month beginning in July, 1990. Said sum
will be reduced by the sum of Two Hundred
Dollars ($200.00) as each child attains the
age of 18 years, dies, marries, leaves Wife's
home or otherwise becomes emancipated,
whichever event first occurs.
By subsequent order entered April 4, 1991, the amount of child
support was changed to $600 per month. No corresponding
amendment was made to the Agreement, and all previous orders not
specifically modified remain in full effect.
The trial court reviewed the parties' Agreement and
concluded:
The agreement was specific as to the amount
of reduction, there being no ambiguity, and I
find that the reduction is limited to
$200.00. A Court cannot change that which
the parties agreed to absent fraud or duress.
If their intent was other than that stated,
it should have been set forth in clear
concise language.
We agree with the trial court's interpretation. Nowhere in
the language of the Agreement is there a reference to a one-half
reduction in child support when a child became emancipated or
2
otherwise left wife's home. Instead, the parties agreed, as
evidenced by the unambiguous language of the Agreement, to a $200
reduction in child support upon any of a series of events.
It is the function of the court to construe
the contract made by the parties, not to make
a contract for them. The question for the
court is what did the parties agree to as
evidenced by their contract. The guiding
light in the construction of a contract is
the intention of the parties as expressed by
them in the words they have used, and courts
are bound to say that the parties intended
what the written instrument plainly declares.
Hederick v. Hederick, 3 Va. App. 452, 455-56, 350 S.E.2d 526, 528
(1986) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
3