In an unpublished opinion issued March 3, 2026, the Virginia Court of Appeals held that a trial court could not add new terms to a military retired pay division order that were not included in the parties’ original property settlement agreement.
Military retirement provisions in divorce agreements can create major enforcement problems if they are not drafted carefully from the start. This case shows that even when payment issues arise later, a court cannot simply add new terms to make the agreement work.
In Pollock v. Pollock, the parties’ property settlement agreement provided that the wife would receive 50% of the marital share of the husband’s military retirement, based on “gross pay.” After entry of the final decree, the wife attempted to obtain approval from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for a military retired pay division order, but DFAS rejected the proposed order twice.
The trial court later entered an amended order that did two significant things. It required the husband to pay the wife directly if DFAS did not, and it changed the agreement’s language from “gross pay” to “disposable retired pay.”
The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the trial court could not add an indemnification provision the parties had never included in their original agreement. It also held that changing “gross pay” to “disposable retired pay” improperly changed the substance of the parties’ bargain. The takeaway is straightforward: when military retirement benefits are addressed in a Virginia divorce settlement, the language matters. If the parties want protections such as backup direct-payment obligations or other enforcement terms, those provisions should be clearly included in the agreement itself rather than added later through litigation.
Rob Hagy is a Virginia divorce and family law attorney serving Charlottesville, Virginia, and surrounding communities. You can see more content from Rob at www.charlottesvilledivorceattorney.com and at www.virginiafamilylawjournal.com.