Suzanne Marie Schillmoeller v. Andrew Ryan Younkle ( 2023 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Ortiz and Causey
Argued at Fairfax, Virginia
SUZANNE MARIE SCHILLMOELLER
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 1165-21-4 JUDGE DORIS HENDERSON CAUSEY
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
ANDREW RYAN YOUNKLE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Richard E. Gardiner, Judge
Virginia C. Haizlip (Kathryn C. Swain; McCandlish & Lillard, PC, on
briefs), for appellant.
Michael C. May (May Law, L.L.P., on brief), for appellee.
Suzanne Schillmoeller (“wife”) appeals from a divorce decree of the Circuit Court of
Fairfax County (“trial court”). Both wife and Andrew Younkle (“husband”) dispute the terms of
a marital separation agreement (“MSA”) that they executed before their divorce. Wife argues
that the trial court erred in: (1) “determining that the [MSA] was clear and unambiguous on its
face and did not require the introduction of parol evidence”; (2) “interpreting the MSA as
providing for spousal support despite the contradictory language employed by the parties”; and
(3) “deciding in favor of Appellee[,] in violation of the Massey [sic] doctrine.”1 Husband argues
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1
The Massie doctrine prohibits a litigant from relying on evidence that contradicts his
testimony about facts within his personal knowledge. Massie v. Firmstone, 134 Va. 450, 462
(1922). Because we hold that the MSA is unambiguous, we do not address wife’s third
assignment of error. “Following the traditional doctrine of judicial restraint, [appellate courts]
‘decide cases “on the best and narrowest grounds available.”’” Levick v. MacDougall, 294 Va.
283, 302 (2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017)). See also Kirby v.
Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 691, 698 n.2 (2007).
in his cross assignments of error that the trial court erred in: (1) “refusing to allow” him to argue
that he should be awarded attorney fees; and (2) “summarily deny[ing] the award of attorney fees
to him.”
For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. We hold that the MSA is unambiguous and affirm the
trial court’s decision to deny parol evidence. We hold that the MSA classifies husband’s
“disposable military retired pay”2 as a marital asset, subject to equitable distribution, rather than
spousal support. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s classification of husband’s military
retirement pay as spousal support. Accordingly, “wife shall have 50% of [husband’s] military
retirement, when a military retirement is earned by Husband.”3 Further, we hold that the trial
court did not err in denying husband attorney fees and affirm its decision not to award those
expenses. Finally, we deny both parties’ requests for an award of attorney fees and costs
incurred on this appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
Husband and wife separated after almost ten years of marriage. Without representation,4
both drafted and entered a MSA using a generic template. The trial court affirmed, ratified, and
incorporated by reference the MSA into the parties’ final decree of divorce in April 2010. The
2
There are a variety of common alternatives to the term “disposable military pay.”
Depending on the source and its author, judicial opinions, legal briefs, statutes, journals, and
articles have all used different ways to refer to the same military benefits. A few ways
“disposable military pay,” as stated in the Act, have been identified include “military retirement
pay,” “retired pay,” “military retirement income,” and “military pay.” Even the U.S. Code uses
“retired or retainer pay” and “monthly retired pay” in the same code chapter. See e.g., 10 U.S.C.
§ 1408. We note this issue to clarify that these terms all mean the same thing.
3
Andrew R. Younkle was not retired from the military during the MSA or divorce
proceedings. Thus, no military retirement had been “earned by Husband.”
4
Suzanne M. Schillmoeller was a licensed attorney during this time.
-2-
MSA is a seven-page pre-formatted document divided into twelve numbered sections with
various subsections and titles. Under the MSA and specifically in dispute on this appeal is
Section 8, which is titled “SPOUSAL SUPPORT” and states that husband “shall pay to Wife
spousal support in the sum of zero dollars” for a period of “N/A.” This section further provides
that “[a]lso, Husband agrees that Wife shall have 50% of his military retirement, when a military
retirement is earned by Husband.”
Other relevant sections and subsections included: subsection “C” of Section 2 labeled
“OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY” which states, “[t]he goods have already been divided”; and
Section 10 titled “FINAL AGREEMENT” which states, “[t]his agreement sets forth the entire
agreement and understanding between the Husband and Wife relating to the settlement of marital
property and finances and supersedes all prior discussions between us.” The divorce decree
included no spousal support provisions, and neither party completed the spousal support notice
requirements established in Code § 20-107.1(H). Husband re-enlisted in the military in May
2010 and remains on active duty. Wife remarried in 2012.
In 2020, wife applied for her share of husband’s military retirement pay. Husband filed
an “Amended Motion for Declaratory Relief,” arguing that under Section 8 of the MSA,
husband’s military retirement was a spousal support award that terminated upon wife’s
remarriage in 2012. Husband also requested attorney fees. Wife responded, asserting that the
award of husband’s military retirement pay should be considered marital property subject to
equitable distribution, not spousal support. Husband filed a motion in limine to exclude parol
evidence, arguing that the MSA was unambiguous.
The trial court found that the terms of the MSA were not ambiguous and parol evidence
was unnecessary. The trial court held that the award of husband’s military retirement pay was
spousal support and that wife’s remarriage terminated her right to spousal support. The trial
-3-
court further held that the parties would be responsible for their own attorney fees. Wife filed a
motion to reconsider, which the court denied. This appeal follows.
II. ANALYSIS
“Property settlement agreements are contracts and are subject to the same rules of
construction that apply to the interpretation of contracts generally.” Price v. Peek, 72 Va. App.
640, 646 (2020) (quoting Jones v. Gates, 68 Va. App. 100, 105 (2017)). “[T]his Court reviews
the circuit court’s ‘interpretation of the parties’ agreement de novo.’” Id. “We do not defer to a
trial court’s determination because ‘we have an equal opportunity to consider the words of the
contract within the four corners of the instrument itself.’” Worsham v. Worsham, 74 Va. App.
151, 164 (2022) (quoting Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. N. Va. Reg’l Park Auth., 270 Va. 309, 315
(2005)). A court’s determination of “[w]hether contractual provisions are ambiguous is a
question of law and not of fact.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Nextel Wip Lease Corp. v.
Saunders, 276 Va. 509, 515 (2008)).
The issue before this Court is the same as it was in the lower court: did the parties’
agreement that wife shall have 50% of husband’s military retirement pay terminate upon wife’s
remarriage? Clearly, classifying husband’s military retirement as spousal support would
terminate his financial obligation to wife. See Code § 20-109(D).5 In contrast, if the military
retirement provision is classified as a property division, wife’s entitlement to the military
retirement is unaffected by her remarriage.
A. Interpreting the Language of the MSA
Wife contends that the trial court erred in: (1) determining that the contract (MSA) was
clear and unambiguous on its face; and (2) interpreting the MSA as providing for spousal support
5
Code § 20-109(D) states in part that “[u]nless otherwise provided by stipulation or
contract, spousal support and maintenance shall terminate upon the death of either party or
remarriage of the spouse receiving support.”
-4-
despite the contradictory language employed by the parties. We agree with the trial court that
the MSA is clear and unambiguous on its face, but we reverse the court’s classification of
husband’s military retirement pay as spousal support. We hold that the MSA classifies
husband’s military retirement as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
We agree with the trial court that the contract is “clear and unambiguous” on its face and
did not require the introduction of parol evidence. “An agreement should be deemed ‘ambiguous
if it may be understood in more than one way or when it refers to two or more things at the same
time.’” Vilseck v. Vilseck, 45 Va. App. 581, 588 (2005) (quoting Video Zone, Inc. v. KF & F
Props., 267 Va. 621, 625 (2004)). Parol evidence is admissible when the contract’s language is
ambiguous. Stroud v. Stroud, 49 Va. App. 359, 367 (2007). “A contract is not ambiguous
merely because the parties disagree as to the meaning of the terms used.” Plunkett v. Plunkett,
271 Va. 162, 167 (2006). “An ambiguity is not present simply because one could ‘hypothesize
“opposing interpretations” of the same contractual provision.’” Worsham, 74 Va. App. at 168
(quoting Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 297 Va. 21, 29 (2019)). “In reviewing a property
settlement agreement, the court must determine ‘the intent of the parties and the meaning of the
language . . . from an examination of the entire instrument, giving full effect to the words the
parties actually used.’” Jones, 68 Va. App. at 106 (alteration in original) (quoting Layne v.
Henderson, 232 Va. 332, 337-38 (1986)).
When Congress passed the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act
(“USFSPA”) in 1982, the Act allowed state courts to treat “disposable [military] retirement pay”
as the property of exclusively the veteran or both the veteran and the veteran’s spouse under the
state’s domestic relations law. Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 584 (1989). The USFSPA
expressly gave state courts “the authority to treat disposable retired pay as community property”
in divorce proceedings. Id. at 589. Thus, the Act is clear that disposable military retirement pay
-5-
can be subject to equitable distribution. The division of that property can be effected by an order
of the court or an agreement between the parties. Here, the division was an agreement between
the parties.
Nothing in the USFSPA prohibits disposable military retirement pay from being
classified as spousal support especially upon an agreement between the parties. Since the
USFSPA allows courts to treat military retirement pay as the exclusive property of both the
veteran and the veteran’s spouse under the state’s domestic relations law, the parties can
certainly contract regarding their property within the boundaries set by both state and federal
law. Additionally, spousal support is allowed to be paid from the retired pay. 10 U.S.C.
§ 1408(d)(1). Thus, disposable military retirement payments can be classified as spousal support
upon an agreement between the parties. However, here there was no such agreement for spousal
support.
Reading marital separation agreements or property settlement agreements to determine
whether retirement payments are classified as spousal support or marital property, courts in
Virginia typically look to the terms of the parties’ agreement with an eye toward the intent and
function of the payments. See Langley v. Johnson, 27 Va. App. 365, 369 (1998).6 In general,
“the object of spousal support is to ‘provide a sum for such period of time as needed to maintain
6
Langley concerned a dispute over the characterization of a provision for weekly
payments of a specified sum from husband to wife until her death. While payment obligation
was set out in a section of the agreement entitled “Spousal Support and Separate Maintenance,”
the agreement also provided that headings within the instrument “are inserted as a matter of
convenience only and for reference and in no way define or describe the scope of this Agreement
or any provision thereof.” 27 Va. App. at 368-69. Even without relying on the heading,
however, the court concluded the agreement unambiguously provided for the payments as a form
of spousal support. The payments neither constituted nor otherwise related to any property
interest of the parties, and the agreement contained no indication that the payments were
intended to adjust the parties’ rights and interest in their property. By contrast, the fact that the
payment amount was to be adjusted annually according to the consumer price index suggested
they were intended to provide for wife’s necessities, and the termination-at-death limitation
further suggested that they related to her personal circumstances.
-6-
the spouse in the manner to which the spouse was accustomed during the marriage.’” Dailey v.
Dailey, 59 Va. App. 734, 743 (2012) (quoting Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 4 (1990)).
Here, no language in the MSA suggests that disbursements from the military retirement
were intended to function as spousal support. Nothing in the MSA suggests that the payments
were intended to go to wife immediately after the divorce for a specific period of time, and there
is no language that suggests the payments were intended to maintain wife in the manner to which
she was accustomed during marriage. Rather, under the language of the MSA, all military
retirement payments are to be paid to wife at some unspecified time in the future. It is difficult
to imagine how payments in the future could effectively function as spousal support to maintain
a present lifestyle to which wife is accustomed or provide for her current necessities or personal
circumstances. Clearly, the payments were intended to function as marital property to be
distributed at some time in the future after they were earned.
Further, as a procedural matter, husband failed to satisfy the spousal support notice
requirements in the final divorce decree as set forth in Code § 20-107.1(H) or to include its
language in the MSA.7 Such an exclusion implies that the parties did not intend to award the
military retirement as spousal support. See Pellegrin v. Pellegrin, 31 Va. App. 753, 759 (2000)
(“In determining the intent of the parties, courts will generally not infer covenants and promises
which are not contained in the written provisions. However, ‘what is necessarily implied is as
much a part of the instrument as if plainly expressed, and will be enforced as such.’” (quoting
Va. Ry. & Power Co. v. City of Richmond, 129 Va. 592, 611 (1921))). Therefore, the language in
7
Code § 20-107.1(H) provides that agreements awarding spousal support must include,
inter alia, “[t]he amount of periodic spousal support expressed in fixed sums, together with the
payment interval, the date payments are due, and the date the first payment is due,” and “[n]otice
that in determination of a spousal support obligation, the support obligation as it becomes due
and unpaid creates a judgment by operation of law.”
-7-
the agreement indicates that the parties’ intent was that husband’s military retirement pay would
not serve as an award of spousal support.
Instead, the language of the MSA has evidence of equitable distribution intent. For
example, the terms provide that “wife shall have husband’s retirement,” rather than “husband
shall pay wife,” which implies a division of property rather than a support payment.8 Here, we
easily reach a reasonable determination of the parties’ preliminary intentions without
“myopically focus[ing] on a word here or a phrase there.” Erie, 297 Va. at 28. Under the simple
language of the MSA, it is unambiguous that the parties intended that wife receive 50% of
husband’s military retirement when it was earned. This language supports interpreting this
provision as a division of property rather than spousal support or maintenance of wife.
The MSA also specifically states, “spousal support in the sum of zero dollars,” which we
read as awarding wife spousal support in the sum of zero dollars today, tomorrow, and any future
date. The subsequent paragraph reads, “[a]lso, Husband agrees that Wife shall have 50% of his
military retirement, when a military retirement is earned by Husband.” “Also” means “in
addition to.”9 We look again to the plain meaning of each word. Reading the agreement using
the plain meaning of “also,” the agreement states that in addition to “spousal support in the sum
of zero dollars,” wife shall have 50% of the husband’s military retirement when earned by
husband. This language shows that the parties’ intention was not for husband to give the
8
See, e.g., Baker v. Baker, 38 Va. App. 384, 386 (2002) (classifying a profit sharing plan
as a division of marital property when the parties’ property settlement agreement stipulated “wife
shall have one-half of husband’s [profit sharing plan]” (emphasis added)); Lewis v. Lewis, 53
Va. App. 528, 532 (2009) (classifying a pension as marital property when former spouses’
property settlement agreement provided “[h]usband’s pension shall be divided 50/50” (emphasis
added)); Jones v. Gates, 68 Va. App. 100, 103 (2017) (classifying military retirement as a marital
asset when the parties’ settlement agreement provided “[w]ife shall receive one-half of the
marital share of Husband’s military retirement accounts/plans” (emphasis added)).
9
Also, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/also (last
visited Feb. 13, 2023).
-8-
retirement pay to wife in place of spousal support, but rather is a separate provision giving
ownership of the retirement pay to wife. This language thus shows that the parties intended to
classify the retirement pay as marital property.
The fact that the provision distributing husband’s military retirement is under a heading
titled “SPOUSAL SUPPORT” does create a potential for conflicting interpretations of the
parties’ intent. We note, however, that “[w]hile labels may be helpful in determining contractual
intent, they are not controlling.” Donnelly v. Donatelli & Klein, Inc., 258 Va. 171, 180 (1999).
The placement of the military retirement provision under the “SPOUSAL SUPPORT” heading is
the only fact that suggests the parties intended the military retirement to function as spousal
support. In contrast, federal law permitting veterans and their spouses to treat military retirement
pay as marital property and all of the language in the agreement suggests that the parties intended
the military retirement to be classified as marital property subject to equitable distribution. We
therefore hold that because the parties clearly intended to qualify the military retirement as an
asset subject to equitable distribution, wife is thus entitled to 50% of the military retirement and
maintains the right to collect her share of that marital property, despite her remarriage.10
B. The Exclusion of Parol Evidence
Wife also argues that the trial court erred in prohibiting the introduction of parol
evidence. Because we hold, above, that the agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face, we
disagree.
Generally, extrinsic evidence is prohibited. Berry v. Klinger, 225 Va. 201, 208 (1983).
“This is so because the writing is the repository of the final agreement of the parties.” Id.10
Because the parties have stipulated to the 50% division of husband’s military
retirement, we do not engage in the three-step analysis that is generally required to determine the
marital share of a defined benefit plan. See, e.g., Starr v. Starr, 70 Va. App. 486, 489 (2019); see
also Code § 20-107.3(G)(1).
-9-
Additionally, “[t]he parol-evidence rule excludes extrinsic evidence more broadly when the
writing is a ‘complete integration.’” Worsham, 74 Va. App. at 166. A writing that is a complete
integration “bars parol evidence that is offered to ‘add to or explain the terms of a complete,
unambiguous, unconditional, written instrument.’” Id. (quoting Godwin v. Kerns, 178 Va. 447,
451 (1941)). Nevertheless, parol evidence is admissible when the contract’s language is
ambiguous. Stroud, 49 Va. App. at 367.
Here, the agreement is a complete integration. The agreement states that, “[t]his
agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between the Husband and Wife
relating to the settlement of marital property and finances and supersedes all prior discussions
between us.” Thus, because the agreement is a complete integration and we hold, above, that the
agreement is unambiguous, parol evidence is barred. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did
not error in prohibiting the introduction of parol evidence.
C. Attorney Fees at Trial
Husband argues in his cross assignments of error that the trial court erred in: (1) refusing
to allow him to make an argument in support of an award of attorney fees; and (2) summarily
denying him the award of attorney fees. He claims the trial court denied him the opportunity “to
present possible factors for the court to consider despite requesting that the judge hear his
motion.”
Generally, “a claim for recovery of fees is required to be pled under the clear language of
Rule 3:25.” Graham v. Cmty. Mgmt. Corp., 294 Va. 222, 229-30 (2017). Rule 3:25(b) requires
a party to state in his responsive pleading the basis for recovery of attorney fees. The claim is
waived unless leave to file an amended pleading is granted. Rule 3:25(c). “Absent agreement of
the parties with the concurrence of the court, or pursuant to contract or statute with specific
provisions, a litigant is not entitled to bifurcate the issues and have the matter of attorney[] fees
- 10 -
decided by the trial court in post-verdict proceedings.” Lee v. Mulford, 269 Va. 562, 567-68
(2005).
“An award of attorney[] fees is a matter submitted to the trial court’s sound discretion
and is reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Graves v. Graves, 4 Va. App. 326,
333 (1987). “Under the ‘American rule,’” which Virginia courts observe, “prevailing litigants
generally cannot recover their attorney fees unless permitted by statute, contract, or some other
recognized exception.” Worsham, 74 Va. App. at 178. Additionally, there are a variety of
circumstances where it is appropriate to award litigation expenses.11 Generally, in domestic
relations cases, specifically divorce proceedings, the parties can ask for fees under Code
§§ 20-79(b) and 20-99(6).
Code §§ 20-79(b) and 20-99(6) “provide the statutory basis for the broad discretionary
authority circuit courts have to award attorney[] fees and other costs as the equities of a divorce
case and its ancillary proceedings may require.” Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 53 Va. App. 209, 222
(2008). “This discretionary authority also extends to related post-divorce proceedings.” Id.There is no provision in either statute that entitles the prevailing party to attorney fees; however,
“after considering ‘the circumstances of the parties’ and ‘the equities of the entire case,’ a trial
court may exercise its discretion and issue an award of attorney[] fees and costs that is
reasonable ‘under all of the circumstances revealed by the record.’” Mayer v. Corso-Mayer, 62
Va. App. 713, 734 (2014) (quoting Tyszcenko, 53 Va. App. at 223).
Here, after a review of the record, we hold that it was not error for the trial court to
prohibit husband to argue for attorney fees or to deny him attorney fees because husband did not
11
See, e.g., Rowe v. Rowe, 24 Va. App. 123, 139 (1997) (awarding attorney fees for the
trial court’s failure to consider statutory factors in equitable distribution); Northcutt v. Northcutt,
39 Va. App. 192, 200-01 (2002) (awarding attorney fees due to a party unnecessarily prolonging
litigation); Mina v. Mina, 45 Va. App. 215, 222 (2005) (awarding attorney fees because of the
trial court’s error of law).
- 11 -
comply with Rule 3:25. At trial, husband did not seek attorney fees until after the court’s ruling.
Moreover, on appeal, he gives no explanation for why his claim should not be deemed waived
for failure to comply with the rule. Thus, we hold that because husband did not comply with
Rule 3:25, husband waived his claim for attorney fees⎯the trial court did not err in prohibiting
him from arguing for attorney fees post-verdict nor in denying him those fees.
Additionally, husband’s arguments that the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to
argue for attorney fees are barred by Rule 5A:18. Under Rule 5A:18, “[n]o ruling of the trial
court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable
certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable this Court to attain
the ends of justice.” To preserve a claim for appeal, a party must state to the trial court the
specific legal reasoning for his position. See Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 655, 673
(2011) (holding appellant’s assignment of error that admission of an out-of-court statement
violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was barred by Rule 5A:18 because at trial,
appellant only objected to admission of the statement on hearsay grounds).
Here, husband has not preserved his objection to the trial court’s ruling because he did
not offer to the trial court a legal reason for his belief that he was entitled to attorney fees. At
trial, husband simply noted his objection in the trial court’s final order, stating, “objected as to
ruling that each party bears their own fees.” Husband did not offer any legal theory for why he
was entitled to attorney fees and thus, should have been heard on the matter. As a result, there is
no evidence for this Court to consider in determining an award of fees. Thus, the denial of
husband’s request for attorney fees was appropriate. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying husband’s request for attorney fees.
- 12 -
D. Appellate Attorney Fees
Both parties have requested an award of attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal. This
Court may award all or part of the fees requested. See Rule 5A:30(b)(1)-(2). “The decision of
whether to award attorney[] fees and costs incurred on appeal is discretionary.” Koons v. Crane,
72 Va. App. 720, 742 (2021) (quoting Friedman v. Smith, 68 Va. App. 529, 545 (2018)). Both
parties have raised legitimate arguments. “Since this litigation ‘addressed appropriate and
substantial issues,’ and ‘neither party generated unnecessary delay or expense in pursuit of its
interests,’” we deny both parties’ requests for an award of attorney fees and costs incurred on
appeal. Porter v. Porter, 69 Va. App. 167, 176 (2018) (quoting Estate of Hackler v. Hackler, 44
Va. App. 51, 75 (2004)); see also Rule 5A:30(b). Additionally, in making such a determination,
the Court considers all the equities of the case. Rule 5A:30(b)(3). After considering the record
before us and all the equities of the case, we deny both parties’ requests for attorney fees.
III. CONCLUSION
For the following reasons we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the trial court’s holding that the MSA is
unambiguous and affirm its decision to deny parol evidence. However, we hold that the MSA
classifies husband’s military retirement as a marital asset, subject to equitable distribution. We
reverse the trial court’s finding that husband’s military retirement pay is spousal support.
Therefore, “wife shall have 50% of [husband’s] military retirement, when a military retirement is
earned by Husband.” We hold that wife maintains the right to collect her share of that marital
property, notwithstanding her remarriage. Further, we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying
husband attorney fees and costs. Lastly, the parties’ requests for attorney fees and costs in this
appeal are denied.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- 13 -