Divorce; Laffin v Laffin; Spousal support termination on retirement under a consent judgment; Burkhardt v Baile

The court held that plaintiff-ex-husband did not “retire” under the consent judgment until he formally elected retirement with his employer, so his spousal-support obligation continued. The parties divorced in 2007 by consent judgment requiring $1,000/month in spousal support until certain events, including plaintiff’s retirement. In 2020, he stopped working due to medical disability and went on no-work medical leave, but did not submit retirement paperwork until 3/24. The trial court enforced the support provision and ordered $38,000 in arrears. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that ceasing work on medical leave meant he was retired within the judgment’s meaning. “Reading both the alimony and pension/QDRO clauses together, the parties’ intent when entering into the contract was clear: In order for plaintiff to have retired for purposes of the consent judgment, he had to formally elect to retire from” his job. The court further explained that “‘retirement’ under the agreement was not tied to plaintiff’s subjective belief as to his employment status, but rather to the completion of specific steps taken with plaintiff’s current employer.” It emphasized courts “must enforce the agreement according to its plain and unambiguous language as written, and may not rewrite the agreement under the guise of interpretation.” Affirmed.