John Michael Boone v. Rebecca Ann Boone, 0578174

Parties entered a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) incorporated into the final divorce decree; husband agreed to pay $2,400/month spousal support starting June 1, 2010.
PSA provided that if the husband "involuntarily retires," spousal support "shall be recalculated based upon the incomes of the parties at that time."
Husband lost his job in September 2013 and subsequently earned little or no income in 2014–2015; wife’s earnings increased over that period.
Wife filed a rule to show cause in July 2016 alleging unpaid support; husband moved to modify support under the PSA provision.
At an October 31, 2016 hearing the circuit court found the husband involuntarily retired but concluded there was no showing of need or ability to pay and set support at zero effective the date of the hearing.
On March 9, 2017 the circuit court entered a final order making the modification effective from October 31, 2016; husband appealed arguing the recalculation should have been effective as of his involuntary retirement in 2013.

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Whether the PSA required the spousal-support recalculation to operate retroactively to the date of the husband’s involuntary retirement (Sept. 2013) rather than from the date of judicial recalculation/hearing	The PSA’s retirement contingency automatically modified his obligation as of the retirement date, leaving only later judicial recalculation to fix the new amount	The PSA requires a recalculation that takes effect at the time of recalculation/ judicial modification; past due installments vested and cannot be retroactively altered	The court held the PSA’s plain language ties the change to the time of recalculation, not to the retirement date, so the modification was properly effective at the date of judicial recalculation/hearing; retroactive change to 2013 was not allowed

Stroud v. Stroud, 54 Va. App. 231, 677 S.E.2d 629 (Va. Ct. App.) (trial-court factual deference; contractual construction rules for PSAs)
Everett v. Carome, 65 Va. App. 177, 775 S.E.2d 449 (Va. Ct. App.) (PSA interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Reid v. Reid, 245 Va. 409, 429 S.E.2d 208 (Va.) (court may modify only support that may thereafter accrue; cannot modify already accrued installments)
Bennett v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 15 Va. App. 135, 422 S.E.2d 458 (Va. Ct. App.) (each unpaid installment vests as a property right and is immune from modification)
Richardson v. Moore, 217 Va. 422, 229 S.E.2d 864 (Va.) (absent statute, past-due support installments become vested when due)
Baldwin v. Baldwin, 44 Va. App. 93, 603 S.E.2d 172 (Va. Ct. App.) (divorce decree incorporating PSA creates contractual rights)
Southerland v. Estate of Southerland, 249 Va. 584, 457 S.E.2d 375 (Va.) (courts must adhere to plain meaning of unambiguous contract terms)
Cofer v. Cofer, 205 Va. 834, 140 S.E.2d 663 (Va.) (past-due installments cannot be altered absent statute)
Logan v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 168, 622 S.E.2d 771 (Va. Ct. App.) (parties may concede facts and appellate courts accept trial-court recitations)