Perry Edward Jones v. Lori Michelle Gates
68 Va. App. 100
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties incorporated a property settlement agreement into their final divorce decree dividing Husband’s military retirement; Wife was to draft the qualified domestic relations order (MQCO) and pay drafting costs.
- The agreement included reciprocal fee-shifting clauses: (a) enforcement costs borne by the defaulting party; (b) costs incurred in successful defense of an enforcement action borne by the party seeking enforcement.
- At a June 30, 2014 hearing Wife submitted a proposed MQCO; Husband objected and submitted an alternative. The court entered a modified version of Wife’s draft and reserved the fee issue.
- Husband appealed aspects of the MQCO; this Court remanded, directing amendment of injunctive provisions but did not resolve attorney’s fees. On remand the trial court denied both parties’ fee requests, finding Wife’s submission was not an “action for enforcement” and neither party was in default.
- Husband moved for reconsideration, was denied, and appealed the denial of his request for attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Jones's Argument | Gates's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife’s submission of a proposed MQCO constituted an “action for enforcement” under the agreement | Submission of the MQCO was an enforcement action; Husband successfully defended against it and thus is entitled to fees under paragraph (b) | Wife’s submission was compliance with the agreement, not a show-cause/enforcement action; not entitled to fees | The court held Wife’s request to enter the MQCO was not an “action for enforcement,” so fee-shifting clause (b) did not apply |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying fees absent an enforcement action | Trial court misapplied discretion by refusing fees despite Husband prevailing on objections | Trial court reasonably exercised discretion because Wife complied with the agreement and no default occurred | The court found no abuse of discretion in denying Husband’s fee request |
| Whether appellate fees should be awarded to Wife for defending the appeal | N/A | Wife sought appellate fees | Court declined to award appellate fees to Wife |
| Whether Husband’s appeal was properly before the Court | Husband contended the order denying fees was final and appealable | Wife sought dismissal for lack of appeal from a final order | Court found Husband perfected the appeal and refused dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Southerland v. Estate of Southerland, 249 Va. 584 (property settlement agreements are contracts; contract construction rules apply)
- Plunkett v. Plunkett, 271 Va. 162 (trial court interpretation of a property settlement agreement reviewed de novo)
- Ulloa v. QSP, Inc., 271 Va. 72 (parties may contractually shift attorneys’ fees to the losing party)
- Pellegrin v. Pellegrin, 31 Va. App. 753 (a rule to show cause/motion to enforce a settlement agreement constitutes an action for enforcement warranting fees)
- Layne v. Henderson, 232 Va. 332 (contract interpretation requires examination of the entire instrument to ascertain parties’ intent)
- Wilson v. Holyfield, 227 Va. 184 (courts may not add or subtract contractual language when construing agreements)