Spousal support terminates upon remarriage unless settlement agreement contains very clear language to the contrary

Law Reporter, Oct 2003

Hardesty v. Hardesty, 581 S.E.2d 213 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).

A Virginia appellate court held that an individual's obligation to pay support to a divorced spouse terminates upon the spouse's remarriage, unless the couple's property settlement agreement specifically said that support would continue.

Here, a wife sought a declaratory judgment, before the entry of a final divorce decree, that the couple's property settlement agreement precluded the termination of spousal support if she remarried. A trial court rejected this request.

Affirming, the appellate court said that Va. Code Ann. [sec] 20-109(D) states that unless otherwise provided by stipulation or contract, spousal support and maintenance shall terminate upon the death of either party or remarriage of the spouse receiving support. State courts have further held that, to accomplish the stated objective of the statute to resolve ambiguity and thereby reduce litigation, any attempt to abrogate the effect of the statute requires express language either citing the statute or expressly stating that remarriage does not terminate the obligation.

Here, the agreement provided mat spousal support "cannot be terminated for any reason." However, no language in any part of the agreement explicitly demonstrated the parties' intent to avoid operation of the statute as to remarriage, the court found.

Furthermore, the state legislature has amended [sec] 20-109 on two occasions since the earlier court decisions on this topic, the court observed, and it has given no indication of a desire to change the existing interpretation of the statute. Where the legislature acts in an area in which the court has already spoken, it is presumed to know the law as the court has stated it and to acquiesce therein, the court said. This supports the view that the legislature intended for spousal support to end at remarriage, in the absence of utterly unambiguous language to the contrary in the parties' agreement, the court concluded.

Husband's Counsel

* Frank N. Cowan, Richmond, Va.

Ishnella I.G. Moore, Richmond, Va.