| J.M. LEWIS, JR. v. LYNNE H. LEWIS | | | | of his inappropriate actions. |
| COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA | | | | Although he claims that wife should be faulted for |
| 53 Va. App. 528 | | | | her "own delay and refusal" to present a QDRO, wife |
| Husband appeals from these April 9, 2008 orders | | | | was not required to concede to husband's |
| Issues: | | | | interpretation of the PSA. In addition, although |
| - Whether the trial court erred in awarding wife half | | | | husband had the ability to remove the funds from |
| of the marital portion of his pension plan? | | | | the profit-sharing account, he had no legitimate |
| - Whether the trial court erred in awarding wife the | | | | authority to remove wife's portion of those funds, |
| growth on her portion of the marital share of | | | | according to both the PSA and the court's order |
| husband's profit-sharing account? | | | | incorporating that agreement. Wife was clearly |
| - Whether the trial court has an authority to order | | | | entitled under the PSA, under the court's order, and |
| that husband obtain life insurance for the benefit of | | | | under basic principles of equity to the interest on her |
| wife? | | | | portion of the profit-sharing account, especially after |
| - Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney's | | | | husband removed those funds without her |
| fees to wife? | | | | permission. We find the trial court did not err in |
| Whether the trial court erred in awarding wife half of | | | | awarding wife the growth on her portion of the |
| the marital portion of his pension plan? | | | | marital share of husband's Philip Morris profit-sharing |
| The court finds that "Marital share" means that | | | | account. |
| portion of the total interest, the right to which was | | | | Whether the trial court has an authority to order that |
| earned during the marriage and before the last | | | | husband obtain life insurance for the benefit of wife? |
| separation of the parties . . . ." The trial court | | | | The PSA did not address the issue of life insurance in |
| determined that the pension was worth $ 3,719.82 | | | | any way, so the trial court did not derive authority to |
| per month on June 1, 2003, the date that the parties | | | | order husband to get the insurance under its terms.. |
| separated. The evidence supports that finding." | | | | Furthermore, under Virginia Divorce Code § |
| Thus, the trial court did not err in the amount of | | | | 20-107.3(G)(2), a trial court cannot order that a |
| husband's pension that it awarded to wife." | | | | person obtain life insurance on himself for the benefit |
| Whether the trial court erred in awarding wife the | | | | of a former spouse, although a court can order that |
| growth on her portion of the marital share of | | | | a person elect to have survivor's benefits on a |
| husband's profit-sharing account? | | | | pension or annuity. Therefore, the trial court did not |
| Husband took from wife the ability to control her | | | | have authority, as part of the equitable distribution |
| portion of the profit-sharing account, without her | | | | here, to order that husband obtain life insurance for |
| permission. He exerted control over her portion after | | | | the benefit of wife |
| the PSA had specifically divided the account so that | | | | Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney's |
| husband was no longer entitled to control that | | | | fees to wife? |
| money. Thus, in awarding wife the growth on her | | | | The trial court had discretion to award attorney's |
| portion of the profit-sharing account after husband | | | | fees. Given husband's behavior here, and his use of |
| took the money and put it into the annuities, the trial | | | | marital funds to the exclusion of wife, the award |
| court simply gave effect to this intention of the PSA, | | | | was not an abuse of that discretion. |
| which husband had frustrated. Husband acted | | | | These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law |
| unilaterally, taking upon himself the responsibility for | | | | Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of |
| wife's money. Therefore, wife should be entitled to | | | | the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be |
| any profit made from her portion of these marital | | | | consulted for their authoritative content. |
| funds. Otherwise, husband would receive the benefit | | | | |