Jeff Morgan Husband, a member of the United States Navy, and his former wife, Tina Wife, were divorced in February 2007 by a final judgment and decree that incorporated a previously executed settlement agreement between the parties. In pertinent part, the settlement agreement provided that upon the retirement of Husband from such military service, Wife shall be entitled to receive from his retirement benefits only such portion of such benefits as the Navy requires be paid to her. In the event that such payments to Wife are required by the Navy, Husband agrees to sign any documents required by the Navy to insure that Wife receives any such required amount. After entry of the divorce decree, the parties learned that the Navy did not “require” any division of Husband’s benefits and in fact had no legal authority to determine the allocation of retirement pay between ex-spouses. See 10 USC § 1408 d prescribing rules for payment of military retirement benefits to former spouses in such amounts as determined by court of competent jurisdiction. Wife nonetheless sought Husband’s agreement to a proposed Agreed Domestic Relations Order ADRO under which Wife would receive 50 of the designated “marital portion” of Husband’s retirement benefits. Husband refused to sign the ADRO. Thereupon, in July 2008, Wife filed a petition in the trial court seeking to hold Husband in contempt for refusing to sign the ADRO and seeking “clarification” as to her entitlement to military survivor benefits, which were not specifically addressed in the settlement agreement or otherwise in the divorce decree. In the alternative, Wife requested that the court set aside the divorce decree based on the parties’ mutual mistake as to the Navy’s authority to allocate Husband’s retirement benefits and the failure of the decree to address Wife’s entitlement to survivor benefits. At the hearing on the matter, both parties testified to their understanding that Husband’s military retirement benefits were a marital asset. Testimony also established that, although both parties believed that the Navy would apportion such benefits between them, Husband was consistent in insisting that he would agree to do no more than the Navy required. Wife also testified that she had proceeded pro se in the divorce action while Husband had retained counsel; that Husband’s counsel had drafted the settlement agreement; and that Wife had refused to sign an earlier version of the settlement agreement because it did not provide for any division of Husband’s military retirement pay. Expert testimony established the present value of the retirement benefits to be in excess of one- half million dollars, making it the largest asset in the marital estate.
In its final order, the trial court found that the parties had a mutual misunderstanding that Navy regulations defined a former spouse’s share of military retirement pay. Rather than set aside the divorce decree on this basis, the court, declaring the agreement ambiguous on this point, purported to exercise its “inherent powers to interpret” the agreement. Based on the parties’ roughly equal distribution of their other marital assets, the court determined that the parties had intended to divide the marital portion of Husband’s retirement benefits on an equal basis as well and awarded Wife “fifty percent of Husband’s retirement that accrued during the time that he was married to Wife.” Having thus found that the parties clearly intended for Wife to share in Husband’s retirement benefits, the court held Husband in contempt for refusing to sign the ADRO. The court further held, based on expert testimony adduced at the hearing, that Wife’s share of the military retirement benefits must be construed to include coverage under the Department of Defense Survivor Benefit Plan.1 We granted Husband’s application for discretionary appeal to review the propriety of the trial court’s disposition.
