- 8 -
division or distribution by a court.1 See N.C. Gen. Stat. secs. 50-
20(b)(2), 50-20(a) (1981). Thus, as applicable to the instant
situation, even though the district court lacked authority to order
a division of Mr. Mozley’s military retirement pay, Mr. Mozley had
the ability to divide his retirement payments with petitioner; and
in fact, he agreed to do so pursuant to paragraph 8(l) of the
agreement.
On the basis of the clear and unambiguous language of the
agreement and amended agreement, we conclude that the payments to
petitioner should be characterized as alimony. We reach this
conclusion based on the following. First, the agreement
characterizes the payments in question as “alimony” and contains
other provisions that specifically relate to the division of the
parties’ property.2 Second, the agreement specifically provides
that the payments in question are “intended to be payments of
alimony”. Third, the agreement specifically states that the
1 After the entry of petitioner’s divorce, North Carolina
amended its law, effective Aug. 1, 1983, to treat military
retirement pension as marital property, thus subjecting military
retirement to a Court’s equitable distribution authority. See
N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 50-20 (1999); Morris v. Morris, 339 S.E.2d
424 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).
2 We are mindful that par. 8(l), which refers to the
payment of one-half of Mr. Mozley’s military retirement payments
as “additional alimony” to petitioner, closely followed par.
8(i), which discusses “alimony”. Reading these paragraphs in
tandem supports our conclusion that the payments at issue
constitute alimony.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011