In the case of Cauley v. Cauley, the Virginia Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's order requiring the execution of a trust agreement and deed conveying title of husband's residence in trust to be held for the benefit of his wife, as the remedy for husband’s breach of certain terms of a property settlement agreement, which was incorporated by reference in a final decree of divorce. The separation agreement stated that wife would remain beneficiary of husband’s pension. Shortly after the entry of the final decree, and in direct breach of this portion of the agreement, husband “actively took steps to remove [wife] as the beneficiary” under the pension. Husband concedes he breached the agreement and admits that, under federal law, it is not now possible to reinstate wife as a beneficiary under the pension. As a result of removing wife as the beneficiary, husband receives an additional benefit of $225 per month during his lifetime. Had husband not breached the agreement, wife would have received not less than $1,514 per month from the pension upon husband’s death. The court heard evidence that the cost to purchase an annuity for wife’s life, to take effect at the end of the actuarially calculated date of husband’s death, would be $159,536.41. The trial court concluded that the appropriate remedy for husband’s breach of the agreement was to put into effect a trust agreement for the benefit of wife. The trust agreement provides for the conveyance of husband’s residence to the trustee. Husband retained the right to occupy the residence for his lifetime unless he defaulted on the trust obligations. If he defaulted and wife predeceased husband, the funds remaining from the sale of the residence caused by the husband’s default would revert to husband. If husband predeceased wife, wife would receive from the proceeds of the sale of the residence $1,514 on a monthly basis, increasing each year by 2.2%, until her death or until the funds were exhausted. If she predeceased husband, the trustee would re-convey the property to husband. The husband challenges the court’s creation of the trust as a remedy for his breach, arguing any damages caused by his breach were speculative. Wife's damages only to be proved with reasonable, but not absolute, certainty. All she had to do was furnish evidence of sufficient facts to permit the trier of fact to make an intelligent and probable estimate of the damages sustained. The rule against recovery of uncertain damages generally has been directed against uncertainty as to cause rather than uncertainty as to measure or extent. Unquestionably, husband breached the terms of the parties’ agreement to wife’s detriment and, thus, violated the final decree. Although it is uncertain whether husband will predecease wife and how long she will live thereafter, it is known that wife would have received a sum certain as the beneficiary under husband’s pension in the event he died before her. As it was impossible to reinstate wife as a beneficiary of the pension, and impractical to require the purchase of an annuity, the court properly fashioned an appropriate remedy for husband’s breach. In the administration of remedies, an equity court is not bound by the strict rules of the common law, but adapts its relief and molds its decrees to satisfy the requirements of the case. Its purpose is the accomplishment of justice, and it will administer such relief as the exigencies of the case demand. In the remedy fashioned by the court, wife receives no more than the benefit of her bargain.
Comments