This case arises out of a divorce settlement agreement between Anita Howard (“Wife”) and Benjamin Howard (“Husband”).
1. The parties had bеen married for nearly forty years when, on December 19, 2014, Wife filed a petition for divorce on grounds of adultery with no hope of reconciliation. Husband was a dentist, and hе had earned a military pension while working at the Bureau of Prisons as a commissioned officer of the U. S. Public Health Service. He began receiving his military pension paymеnts after retiring in 2004. These payments included a sizeable deduction for the survivor benefit premium, which entitled Wife to continue receiving pension payments if Husband predeceased her. At the time of divorce, the parties had no minor children, but their oldest son is autistic, and, despite being in his thirties, he has the cognitive abilities of a seven-year-old. Wife has been the primary caretaker of their son and has not worked outside the home for approximately thirty years. The parties mediated and eventually signed
In the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to share equally in Husband’s military pension plan, as follows:
The parties agree that Husband currently receives a monthly retirement benefit with the military (“Military Pension”). Beginning May 1, 2015 and being due and payable on the first day of each consecutive month thereafter pursuant to direct deposit, Wife shall receive 50% (one-half) of the total monthly benefits paid out for the duration of the plan.
Husband was also required to “inform the Military Pension plan of Wife’s interest in said plan” and timely complеte all paperwork to ensure Wife’s receipt of her monthly share. The settlement agreement provided that the pension plan payments “shall not be taxablе alimony but shall be equitable division of property.” The settlement agreement did not expressly mention the survivor benefit.
Throughout the divorce proceedings, and for months after the final divorce decree was issued, the survivor benefit premium continued to be deducted from the pension plan. In October 2016, Wife filed a petition for contempt against Husband, alleging, among other things, that Husband had not completed the paperwork necessary to continue her designation as the survivor beneficiary under the pension plan. Wife also argued that the survivor benefit was part of the “total monthly benefits” of the pension plan to which she was entitled. Husband filed a counterclaim for contеmpt on various grounds. At a hearing on October 24, 2016, Wife asked the trial court to at least clarify that the “total monthly benefits” included the survivor benefit. After the hearing, the trial court issued an order denying the claims of each party. With regard to the survivor benefit, the trial court stated simply: “On the question of whether [Husband] is required by the parties’ settlement agreemеnt to complete the necessary paperwork making [Wife] the beneficiary of [Husband]’s military’s survivor benefit plan, the parties’ settlement agreement is entirely silent on this. Thе Motion [for contempt] is therefore DENIED.” This appeal followed.
2. To begin, we understand the trial court to have meant by its ruling that the settlement agreement did not expressly and unambiguously include the survivor benefit as part of the “total monthly benefits,” thereby precluding a finding of contempt. So understood, the trial court was correct. The plain language of the settlement agreement references the military “retirement benefit” that Husband “currently receives” and requires Husband to pay Wife “50% (one-half) of the total monthly bеnefits paid out for the duration of the plan.” On one hand, the survivor benefit is clearly a “benefit” of the pension plan, as it provides insurance against the death of the pension recipient. See Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining ‘Lenefit” as “[t]he advantage or privilege something gives; the helpful or useful effect something has”). On the other hand, thе survivor benefit is not an intrinsic part of the pension plan, but is contingent on the plan recipient paying a monthly premium that is automatically deducted from the pension payments. The survivor benefit will be “paid out,” if at all, only upon Husband’s death, and the “duration of the plan” thus depends on whether the premium is paid and whether Husband predeceаses the beneficiary In this light, the plain language of the settlement agreement is ambiguous as to whether it entitles Wife to a share in the survivor benefit in addition to the pension pаyments.
Because the settlement agreement was facially ambiguous on the survivor benefit issue, Husband could not be held in contempt for his failure to ensure Wife’s receipt оf this benefit. See Coppedge v. Coppedge,
3. Although we affirm the trial court’s ruling on contempt, Wife is not completely without recourse. The trial court’s order does not appear to address, either expressly or implicitly, Wife’s verbal request for clarification that she made during the contempt heаring. The trial court had before it only a written motion for contempt, and its finding on the settlement agreement’s facial ambiguity, as discussed above, was sufficient to decide this motion. The ultimate question of whether Wife is entitled to survivor benefits has not been settled, and Wife still might move the trial court to resolve this ambiguity.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
We note that the Court of Appeals, rather than this Court, has subject matter jurisdiction over “[a]ll divorce and alimony cases” in which a notice of appeal or application to appeal is filed on or after January 1, 2017. Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2016, Ga. L. 2016, p. 883, §§ 3-1 (codified at ÓCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (5)), 6-1 (c); Merrill v. Lee,
Resolution of this ambiguity would require the trial court to apply well-settled rules of contract construction. See Hall v. Day,