Paul Anthony Menninger v. Janet Marie Menninger
64 Va. App. 616
| Va. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Married in 1983, separated in 2011;
- In 2013, the parties’ property settlement agreement, incorporated 2013, provided for a John Hancock retirement account distribution to be divided equally if the 2012 distribution occurred;
- Wife filed a June 2014 petition alleging husband failed to pay her share of the 2012 distribution from his retirement account;
- Husband claimed there was no 2012 distribution or that the funds were not a true distribution but a refund of an overpayment;
- On August 14, 2014, the trial court ordered husband to pay wife $6,000 as her share of a $12,000 distribution;
- Husband appealed arguing lack of a distribution, misapplication of the agreement, and denial of opportunity to testify; the appellate court reverses and remands for further proceedings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a valid 2012 distribution to divide under the agreement? | Menninger (wife) asserts she is entitled to her share of the 2012 distribution. | Menninger (husband) contends there was no distribution or it was not a true distribution. | Remanded for fact-finding on the existence/amount of distribution. |
| Did the trial court err by denying husband the opportunity to testify and present evidence? | No explicit argument stated for plaintiff here; focus is on due process. | Husband contends due process rights were violated by lack of opportunity to present witnesses and evidence. | Remanded to allow evidence and cross-examination on the distribution issue. |
| Did the court correctly interpret the property settlement's distribution provision? | Wife argues the agreement requires payment of her share if a 2012 distribution occurred. | Husband argues the term “distribution” applies differently or was mischaracterized. | Remand for proper evidentiary development and interpretation consistent with due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward Lumber Co. v. Henderson-White Mfg. Co., 107 Va. 626 (1907) (due process requires a hearing before a binding decree affecting property)
- Venable v. Venable, 2 Va. App. 178 (1986) (right to be heard includes opportunity to testify)
- Street v. Street, 24 Va. App. 14 (1997) (right to testify and present witnesses in defense of contempt)
- Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 (2010) (due process and hearing rights in evidentiary proceedings)
- Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255 (2003) (standard of review when reversing/affirming findings on appeal)