Villars v. Villars, 277 P.3d 763

Richard and Kathleen Villars married in 1984 and filed for dissolution in 2002, agreeing to a 50/50 split of the marital estate.
At dissolution, Richard's military retirement benefits were not yet qualified or payable; the agreement contemplated a 50/50 split of the marital portion when benefits began.
Attachment A and a then-draft QDRO split future retirement benefits; the 2002 QDRO later set Kathleen’s share at 50% of Richard's disposable retired pay, payable when Richard retired.
Richard began collecting military retirement benefits in 2009 at age 48, earlier than anticipated, triggering Kathleen’s claimed marital portion under the 2002 QDRO.
DFAS rejected Kathleen’s 2002 QDRO because it used points, not years; a clarifying order converting to a years-based formula was drafted and signed in 2009 but later contested.
Superior Court found the settlement unambiguous and the parties intended a 50/50 division upon Richard’s retirement, ordering repayment of half the benefits Richard had already received.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the agreement is ambiguous or unambiguous about timing	Villars: agreement unambiguous; 50/50 upon retirement.	Villars: evidence supports ambiguity with age-60 cue.	Agreement is unambiguous; 50/50 upon retirement.
Whether Kathleen’s portion should commence when Richard retires or at age 60	Villars: commence at retirement (not age 60).	Villars: payments limited to age 60.	Kathleen’s share begins when Richard retires.
Whether post-divorce benefits between 2009 and 60 are Richard’s separate property	Villars: those benefits are his separate property.	Villars: Hartley/Tillmon preclude that; share is marital.	Those benefits are marital; not separate property.
Whether the trial court impermissibly modified the settlement	Villars: court’s interpretation was improper modification.	Villars: interpretation consistent with intent.	No impermissible modification; consistent with contract intent.

Hartley v. Hartley, 205 P.3d 342 (Alaska 2009) (post-divorce merit increases not separate property)
Tillmon v. Tillmon, 189 P.3d 1022 (Alaska 2008) (precludes capitalization of future raises as separate property)
Zito v. Zito, 969 P.2d 1144 (Alaska 1998) (contract interpretation framework; extrinsic evidence)
Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070 (Alaska 2011) (standard for reviewing contract interpretation with extrinsic evidence)
Burns v. Burns, 157 P.3d 1037 (Alaska 2007) (contract interpretation; deference to superior court findings)