- 13 -
of any modifications in the payments mandated outside of the
Pension Agreement’s terms. We therefore reject petitioner’s
claim that the Pension and Settlement Agreements were separate
and independent. In light of their contemporaneous execution and
interrelated terms, we find that both the Pension Agreement and
the Settlement Agreement governed the payments at issue in this
case and both are therefore relevant in ascertaining the nature
of the payments.
The Settlement Agreement by its terms constituted a
settlement of Barbara’s and Walter’s “respective rights and
obligations against and to one another” in connection with their
marriage and “a partition of all marital property”. The
Settlement Agreement acknowledges that “Husband and/or Wife have
an interest” in petitioner and contains a detailed disposition
thereof. The transfer to Barbara of one-half of Walter’s 80-
percent stock interest in petitioner is required. The Settlement
Agreement then acknowledges petitioner’s obligation to make
payments to Barbara under the Pension Agreement and in the same
section obligates Walter to cause petitioner to provide Barbara
certain additional “benefits” including the use of two
automobiles of her choosing, together with fuel, maintenance, and
payment of Barbara’s income tax liability arising from receipt of
the foregoing, as well as health insurance comparable to that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011