Jimmie Rushing, Jr. v. Sylvia Rushing

Summary

The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed a supplemental final judgment awarding the former wife 24.83% of the former husband's entire military pension. The court held that the marital settlement agreement unambiguously required application of the percentage formula using the former husband's hypothetical retirement date, rank, years of service, and retired pay base as of the parties' divorce. The case was remanded for entry of a corrected military retired pay division order.

Holdings

1. The agreement is unambiguous and requires the trial court to apply the 24.83% formula while calculating Former Wife's share based on Former Husband's rank, years of service, and retired pay base as if he had retired when the parties divorced. It does not authorize Former Wife to receive 24.83% of Former Husband's entire pension based on his later military service and compensation.
2. The circuit court erred by relying on parol evidence, the Former Wife's interpretation testimony, an abandoned affirmative defense, and other extrinsic circumstances to vary or defeat the terms of the complete and unambiguous agreement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the marital settlement agreement unambiguously required Former Wife's pension share to be calculated using Former Husband's hypothetical retirement circumstances at the time of divorce rather than 24.83% of his entire pension.
2. Whether the circuit court improperly relied on parol evidence and other extrinsic circumstances to interpret an unambiguous marital settlement agreement.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded