Brent E. Kynaston v. Danyelle L. Kynaston
1243204
| Va. Ct. App. | Jun 29, 2021Background:
- Brent and Danyelle Kynaston divorced; before the decree they signed a partial settlement on Aug. 8, 2018 that made husband’s spousal support "not subject to modification," but it did not use the precise statutory wording in the 2018 amendment to Va. Code § 20-109(C).
- The 2018 amendment (effective July 1, 2018) allowed modification of support for agreements executed on/after July 1, 2018 unless the agreement used exact statutory language making support non-modifiable.
- The parties’ agreement was incorporated (but not merged) into the final divorce decree on Nov. 30, 2018.
- The General Assembly revised § 20-109(C) again (approved Mar. 31, 2020; effective July 1, 2020), removing the 2018 exact-language requirement and providing that agreements executed on or after July 1, 2018 are non-modifiable if they "expressly states" non-modifiability.
- Husband filed (June 2020) a declaratory-judgment motion and a motion to modify spousal support (claiming changed income); the circuit court denied both, holding the 2020 amendment applied to agreements executed on/after July 1, 2018 and that applying it did not violate state or federal constitutional contract protections.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2020 amendment to § 20-109(C) applies to agreements executed between July 1, 2018 and July 1, 2020 | The law in effect when the contract was made (the 2018 amendment) governs; 2020 amendment cannot be applied retroactively to an agreement signed Aug. 8, 2018 | The 2020 amendment’s language ("any stipulation or contract executed on or after July 1, 2018") shows legislative intent to encompass all such agreements; it applies when modification is sought | Affirmed: the 2020 amendment applies to agreements executed on or after July 1, 2018, including Aug. 8, 2018 |
| Whether retroactive application of the 2020 amendment violates the Contract Clauses of the U.S. or Va. Constitutions | Retroactive application would impair contractual obligations/vested rights | Applying the 2020 amendment enforces (not impairs) the parties’ bargained-for non-modifiability; any vested contractual rights flow from the agreement itself | Affirmed: no constitutional impairment—the statute enforces the parties’ agreement |
| Whether, alternatively, the agreement would be non-modifiable under the 2018 amendment or other grounds (circuit court’s alternate holding) | Husband argued the agreement lacked the 2018 statute’s exact wording so modification should be allowed | Circuit court offered an alternative analysis favoring non-modifiability | Not decided on appeal: Court of Appeals resolved case on statutory/constitutional grounds and did not reach the alternate holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Supervisors of James City Cnty. v. Windmill Meadows, LLC, 287 Va. 170 (statutory construction looks to legislature's intent and context)
- Bailey v. Spangler, 289 Va. 353 (courts avoid retroactive application absent clear legislative intent)
- Paul v. Paul, 214 Va. 651 (law in force at contract formation ordinarily governs contract rights)
- Sussex Cmty. Servs. Ass’n v. Va. Soc’y for Mentally Retarded Children, Inc., 251 Va. 240 (broad statutory language can show retrospective intent)
- Allen v. Mottley Constr. Co., 160 Va. 875 (example where legislative language indicated retrospective effect)
- Duffy v. Hartsock, 187 Va. 406 (legislature may enact retrospective/curative laws if they do not impair contracts)
- Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234 (federal test for whether a state law substantially impairs contractual relationships)
- Newman v. Newman, 42 Va. App. 557 (pre-2018 rule: separation agreements without express modification terms barred later modification)