The final result of your amicable solutions for your divorce issues will be available in the form of an enforceable real estate transaction contract, written, if written by a qualified mediator, clearly, enforceable, detailed and in neutral language serving the interests of both spouses. If the contractual terms are clear and unequivocal, the contract must be interpreted in terms of its clear meaning. “A contract is not ambiguous simply because the parties do not agree on the meaning of the terms used.” 2005-Vilseck v. Vilseck, 45 Va. App. 581 If it is necessary to consider extrinsious evidence, the appels courts consider the judicial interpretations of the contractual texts of de novo, because the court has the same opportunity to consider the words in the four corners of the provision at issue. Virginia`s law resolves contractual whims in one of three ways: first, in the absence of patents or latent ambiguities, a court should impose the clear meaning of contractual language without resorting to extrinsic evidence. Second, where there is ambiguity, a court should continue to apply the treaty if its true meaning is found. Third, if ambiguity renders the presumed agreement too indeterminate, even after considering extrinsic evidence, to allow the court to determine the intent of the parties, the contract cannot be applied, because there is no visible meeting of minds. (citing Smith v.

Smith, 43 Va. App. 279 (2004). The Tribunal found an error in the fact that the text of a pre-marriage agreement is clear with respect to “separate ownership”. A provision in the “considerations” section of the agreement proposed that “separate ownership” should be limited to property held by one of the parties prior to marriage, but a subsequent provision of the separate property defined for “the ownership of each party… now in possession or later,” who proposed another intention to place more than pre-marriage ownership of the parties beyond the reach of a fair distribution. Desertion or abandonment requires both the abandonment of cohabitation and the intention to desert the spirit of the offender. A simple separation by mutual consent is not considered desertion.

And if one spouse leaves because the other has committed acts that are legally cruelty, then the spouse who leaves is not guilty of desertion. In fact, the spouse who leaves may be divorced for cruelty or constructive de-rion. This is the crucial topic of most divorces.