CourtListener opinion 4535263

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

FILED
 May 19 2020, 5:53 am

 CLERK
 Indiana Supreme Court
 Court of Appeals
 and Tax Court

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
 Cynthia A. Marcus Stephenie K. Gookins
 Marcus Law Firm, LLC Cate, Terry & Gookins LLC
 Carmel, Indiana Carmel, Indiana

 IN THE
 COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

 In Re the Marriage of: May 19, 2020

 Rick Story, Court of Appeals Case No.
 19A-DC-2385
 Appellant-Petitioner,
 Appeal from the Hamilton
 v. Superior Court
 The Honorable Andrew R. Bloch,
 Allyson Story, Magistrate
 The Honorable Jeffrey C. Eggers,
 Appellee-Respondent.
 Magistrate
 Trial Court Cause No.
 29D02-1706-DC-5546

 Najam, Judge.

 Statement of the Case
[1] Rick Story ("Husband") and Allyson Story ("Wife") entered into a mediated

 settlement agreement, which the dissolution court adopted and incorporated

 into the parties' final dissolution decree. When Wife subsequently asked

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 1 of 22
 Husband to sign an addendum to the settlement agreement and Husband

 refused, Wife requested that the dissolution court intervene to resolve the

 dispute. After a hearing, and after the court had issued an order on Wife's

 motion, Husband filed a motion to clarify the order. Husband now appeals the

 dissolution court's order on his motion to clarify. Husband presents two issues

 for our review:

 1. Whether the dissolution court erred when it found that
 Wife is entitled to a post-retirement survivor benefit
 offered through Husband's military retirement program.

 2. Whether the dissolution court erred when it ordered
 Husband and Wife to share the cost of the premiums for
 that survivor benefit.

[2] We affirm.

 Facts and Procedural History
[3] Husband and Wife were married in October 1992, and they have three adult

 children together. In May 2017, Husband, who was then fifty-one years old,

 "left the U.S. Army reserves" after multiple deployments and more than thirty

 years of service. Appellant's Br. at 6. The next month, Husband filed a petition

 for dissolution of the marriage.

[4] In February 2018, Husband and Wife entered into a mediated settlement

 agreement, which provided in relevant part as follows:

 24. Qualified Domestic Relations Order/Military Pension
 Division Order (QDRO/MPDO) [("QDRO provision")]. Wife
 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 2 of 22
 shall be entitled to receive fifty percent (50%) of Husband's
 accrued vested monthly benefit from his Military Reserve
 Annuity Retirement from the date of marriage through the value
 determined as of June 14, 2017. Wife shall be treated as Husband's
 surviving spouse for the purpose of any pre-retirement survivor's benefit
 and shall be entitled to receive her Military Reserve Survivor Pension,
 free and clear of any claim by Husband. In the event Husband is
 entitled to any cost-of-living adjustment, said COLA shall be
 applied to Wife's interest in the plan as well.

 ***

 Wife shall be treated as Husband's irrevocable beneficiary for Husband's
 Military Reserve Annuity Retirement and Husband shall make the
 necessary election in a timely manner to effectuate survivor coverage for
 Wife, if he has not already done so, and shall execute such
 paperwork as is required/necessary within seven (7) days after
 the Court's approval of this Decree. The level of Wife's survivor
 coverage shall be that which will provide her with the same
 benefit payments after Husband's death that she was eligible to
 receive or receiving prior to his death, pursuant to this
 Agreement.

 Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 28-29 (emphases added). The dissolution court

 adopted and incorporated the settlement agreement into the final dissolution

 decree.

[5] Husband was a member of the U.S. Army Reserves until May 2017. Unlike

 active duty members of the U.S. military, who generally receive their military

 retirement pay immediately upon retirement, reservists who leave the military

 prior to reaching retirement age must wait to receive their military retired pay.

 As used in the parties' settlement agreement, it is undisputed that "Military

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 3 of 22
 Reserve Annuity Retirement" means Husband's military retired pay, which will

 start when he reaches fifty-seven years of age ("retirement age").

[6] After the decree was entered, Husband executed "DD Form 2656-1," 1 which is

 entitled "Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Election Statement for Former Spouse

 Coverage." 2 Table Exs. Vol. 3 at 218. 3 The SBP is optional and provides

 survivor benefits to Wife should Husband predecease her. The premiums for

 the SBP are to be deducted from Husband's military retired pay. Because the

 SBP starts before Husband will receive his military retired pay, the premiums

 for survivor coverage during the pre-retirement period "accrue" and will be due

 when Husband starts receiving his retirement pay. Tr. Vol. 2 at 16. The total

 amount of the premiums due for the SBP, including the "post-retirement"

 period (after Husband attains retirement age), is not yet ascertainable, but that

 coverage could cost as much as $100,000 over Husband's life.

[7] In order to implement the QDRO provision, Wife submitted an application to

 the Department of Finance and Accounting Services ("DFAS"), a division

 within the United States Department of Defense ("DOD"). In response to

 Wife's application, in July, DFAS wrote Wife a letter requesting additional

 information necessary to "calculate the division of the retirement," including

 1
 Wife also signed this form.
 2
 In the "Remarks" section of this form, Husband stated that he was a "gray area retiree not yet reaching
 retirement age, but a member of the retired reserves." Table Exs. Vol. 3 at 218.
 3
 Our pagination of the Exhibits Volume is based on the .pdf pagination.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 4 of 22
 Husband's "years of creditable service at the time of the divorce." Table Exs.

 Vol. 3 at 208. The DFAS letter also stated: "If your divorce decree specifies

 that you are to be designated as a former[-]spouse beneficiary for the Survivor

 Benefit Plan (SBP), you must make a ‘deemed election' for coverage . . . using a

 DD Form 2656-10." Id. at 208-09. Wife's counsel requested that Husband

 provide the additional information requested in the letter, which he did by

 email in September. And even though Husband had previously made the

 survivor benefit plan election using DD Form 2656-1, Husband signed DD

 Form 2656-10 and sent it to Wife, who also signed it and submitted it to DFAS.

 DD Form 2656-10 is entitled "Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)/Reserve

 Component (RC) SBP Request for Deemed Election." Id. at 216.

[8] Wife's counsel then prepared an addendum to the mediated settlement

 agreement for the parties' signatures "that included the necessary information

 to meet the DFAS requirements" for calculating the division of Husband's

 military retired pay. Appellee's Br. at 8. Despite his initial cooperation,

 Husband refused to sign the addendum. Husband told Wife's attorney that

 Husband "would not be willing to sign [the addendum] because the cost of the

 premiums for the Survivor Benefit Plan had not been accounted for in the

 settlement agreement." 4 Tr. Vol. 2 at 7-8.

 4
 Neither party has included a copy of the proposed addendum in the appendix on appeal.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 5 of 22
 [9] In December 2018, Wife filed a request for the dissolution court's intervention

 to secure Husband's cooperation in signing the agreed addendum. In the

 meantime, in March 2019, DFAS sent a letter to Wife stating in relevant part:

 Your request has been honored and the Deemed Election is
 complete. You will be entered as the former spouse SBP
 [Survivor Benefit Plan] beneficiary when the member retires and
 begins to receive retired/retainer pay.

 By law, the monthly SBP premiums must be deducted from the
 member's military retirement pay. DFAS cannot deduct
 premiums from the former spouse, regardless of the terms of the
 applicable court order.

 Table Exs. Vol. 3 at 227.

[10] At a hearing on Wife's request for the court's intervention in May 2019, the

 parties' counsel presented oral argument, the parties each testified briefly, and

 both parties offered exhibits that were admitted without objection. Wife's

 counsel advised the court that the DFAS documentation to secure her survivor

 benefit had been submitted and approved, and she stated: "this really comes

 down to an argument of who's going to pay for it. The decree is silent on who

 pays for it." Tr. Vol. 2 at 8. The parties also disputed whether their agreement

 included both pre-retirement and post-retirement survivor benefit coverage.

 Wife testified that she expected survivor benefit coverage for "[t]he rest of [her]

 life." Id. at 10. But Husband testified that he had made the election required by

 the settlement agreement, which, according to Husband, provided that he may

 cancel Wife's survivor benefit coverage at his option after he reaches retirement

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 6 of 22
 age. Husband testified that there is "nothing in the agreement" that would

 prevent him "from doing that." Id. at 18.

[11] Following the hearing, on May 29, the dissolution court issued an order stating:

 1. It is clear from the Mediated Settlement Agreement that Wife
 is entitled to pre-retirement survivor's benefits. See Page 24.

 2. The best evidence indicates the actual title for those benefits is
 "The Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP)."

 3. The Agreement is silent as to how the premium would or will
 be paid.

 4. Evidence presented to the Court is that the premium must be
 withheld solely from the soldier's paid benefits, not the ex-
 spouse's benefits.

 5. Equity is best served, since neither party mentioned payment
 nor is it mentioned in the Mediated Settlement Agreement, that
 each party should pay one-half of the premium.

 6. Therefore, it is ORDERED, that the Wife shall reimburse
 Husband 50% of what is withheld from his benefit each time it is
 withheld for the premium.

 Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 46-47 (emphasis added).

[12] On June 3, Husband filed a motion to clarify the court's May 29 order:

 1. The Court heard evidence at the hearing of May 23, 2019[,]
 regarding whether the parties['] Settlement Agreement provided
 that Wife was entitled to either the "pre-retirement annuity"
 (RCSBP) and/or "post-retirement annuity" (SBP).

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 7 of 22
 2. The Court ruled that Wife was entitled to the pre-retirement
 Reserve Component Survivor's Benefit Plan (RCSBP).

 3. [Husband] respectfully requests that the Court clarify that
 Wife is not entitled to the post-retirement Survivor's Benefit Plan[,]
 or SBP.

 WHEREFORE, [Husband] respectfully requests clarification that
 [Wife] is not entitled to [Husband's] retired military pay SBP and
 for all other relief just and proper in the premises.

 Id. at 48 (emphasis added). After a change of judge, the court ruled on

 Husband's motion as follows:

 The Court's May 29, 2019 Order is clarified as follows:

 a. [Wife] is entitled to receive a portion of [Husband's] post-retirement
 survivor benefit plan, or SBP, as well as the pre-retirement, and RC-SBP.
 In Order to be consistent, [Wife] shall reimburse [Husband] fifty
 percent of what is withheld from [Husband's] benefit each time it
 is withheld for his RC-SBP and SBP.

 Id. at 50-51 (emphasis added). This appeal ensued.

 Discussion and Decision
 Issue One: Wife's Survivor Benefit

[13] Husband first contends that the dissolution court erred when it interpreted the

 parties' settlement agreement to require that he maintain survivor coverage for

 Wife after he reaches retirement age. Initially, we note that Husband refers to a

 "pre-retirement" survivor benefit, which he calls the "RCSBP," and a "post-

 retirement" survivor benefit, which he calls the "SBP," as though they were two

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 8 of 22
 separate and unrelated plans. 5 And the dissolution court adopted those labels in

 its orders. However, as discussed below, Husband elected one survivor benefit

 plan, which covers both the pre- and post-retirement periods. The question

 presented on appeal is whether, as Husband asserted at the evidentiary hearing,

 the settlement agreement permits him to cancel the survivor benefit election after

 he reaches retirement age.

[14] As our Supreme Court has observed, "[w]hen a party asks a court to clarify a

 settlement agreement, the court's task is one of contract interpretation." Ryan v.

 Ryan, 972 N.E.2d 359, 363 (Ind. 2012). And as we have stated:

 "The goal of contract interpretation is to determine the intent of
 the parties when they made the agreement." Tender Loving Care
 Mgmt., Inc. v. Sherls, 14 N.E.3d 67, 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). This
 court must examine the plain language of the contract, read it in
 context and, whenever possible, construe it so as to render every
 word, phrase, and term meaningful, unambiguous, and
 harmonious with the whole. Id. Construction of the terms of a
 written contract generally is a pure question of law. Id. If,
 however, a contract is ambiguous, the parties may introduce
 extrinsic evidence of its meaning, and the interpretation becomes
 a question of fact. Broadbent v. Fifth Third Bank, 59 N.E.3d 305,
 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. "A word or phrase is
 ambiguous if reasonable people could differ as to its meaning."

 5
 Husband avers, without any citation to the record or authority, that the pre-retirement Reserve Component
 Survivor Benefit Plan is "separate" and "has no effect after the servicemember begins receiving retired pay."
 Appellant's Br. at 7. But, as Husband testified, and as we discuss later, the survivor benefit is a single
 election with an option of canceling the coverage after the servicemember reaches retirement age. The
 relevant DOD regulations do not refer to a "pre-retirement survivor benefit" or a "post-retirement survivor
 benefit."

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 9 of 22
 Id. A term is not ambiguous solely because the parties disagree
 about its meaning. Id.

 ***

 If the language is deemed ambiguous, the contract terms must be
 construed to determine and give effect to the intent of the parties
 when they entered into the contract. [Tender Loving Care Mgmt.,
 14 N.E.3d at 72]. "Courts may properly consider all relevant
 evidence to resolve an ambiguity." Id. "‘Extrinsic evidence is
 evidence relating to a contract but not appearing on the face of
 the contract because it comes from other sources, such as
 statements between the parties or the circumstances surrounding
 the agreement.'" Id. (quoting CWE Concrete Const., Inc. v. First
 Nat'l Bank, 814 N.E.2d 720, 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans.
 denied).

 Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc. v. Wilmoth, 70 N.E.3d 833, 839 (Ind. Ct. App.

 2017), trans. denied.

[15] Here, for the first time on appeal, the parties assert that the settlement

 agreement is unambiguous, that the plain meaning of the agreement supports

 his or her interpretation, respectively, and that the resort to extrinsic evidence is

 unnecessary. However, at the hearing, the parties submitted, and asked the

 dissolution court to consider, extrinsic evidence relevant to the survivor benefit

 coverage, namely, their testimony and exhibits admitted at the hearing. In its

 first order on Wife's request for court intervention, the court stated that it relied

 upon "the best evidence" to determine "the actual title" for the survivor

 benefits, which does not appear in the agreement. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at

 46. And in his motion to clarify, Husband acknowledged that the dissolution

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 10 of 22
 court "heard evidence . . . regarding whether the parties' settlement agreement

 provided that Wife was entitled to either the ‘pre-retirement annuity' . . .

 and/or ‘post-retirement annuity[.]'" Id. at 48. Thus, it is clear that the

 dissolution court found the settlement agreement ambiguous and considered

 extrinsic evidence when it relied on testimony and exhibits to interpret the

 survivor benefit provisions in the agreement.

[16] Again, the parties' mediated settlement agreement provides in relevant part as

 follows:

 24. Qualified Domestic Relations Order/Military Pension
 Division Order (QDRO/MPDO) [("QDRO provision")]. Wife
 shall be entitled to receive fifty percent (50%) of Husband's
 accrued vested monthly benefit from his Military Reserve
 Annuity Retirement from the date of marriage through the value
 determined as of June 14, 2017. Wife shall be treated as Husband's
 surviving spouse for the purpose of any pre-retirement survivor's benefit
 and shall be entitled to receive her Military Reserve Survivor Pension,
 free and clear of any claim by Husband. In the event Husband is
 entitled to any cost-of-living adjustment, said COLA shall be
 applied to Wife's interest in the plan as well.

 ***

 Wife shall be treated as Husband's irrevocable beneficiary for Husband's
 Military Reserve Annuity Retirement and Husband shall make the
 necessary election in a timely manner to effectuate survivor coverage for
 Wife, if he has not already done so, and shall execute such
 paperwork as is required/necessary within seven (7) days after
 the Court's approval of this Decree. The level of Wife's survivor
 coverage shall be that which will provide her with the same benefit
 payments after Husband's death that she was eligible to receive or
 receiving prior to his death, pursuant to this Agreement.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 11 of 22
 Id. at 28-29 (emphases added).

[17] On appeal, Husband contends that the plain language of the agreement

 provides for a survivor benefit to Wife only until he reaches retirement age, or

 during the "pre-retirement" period. But Wife maintains that "the totality of the

 [agreement's] language" shows that the parties intended that Wife would also

 have survivor benefit coverage after Husband reaches retirement age, or "post-

 retirement." Appellee's Br. at 11. Nevertheless, Wife points out, and Husband

 agrees, that the agreement uses terminology that differs from that used by the

 DOD in describing Husband's retirement benefits, especially the optional

 survivor benefit coverage. The QDRO provision uses the following terms that

 do not appear in any relevant DOD document: "Military Reserve Annuity

 Retirement"; "pre-retirement survivor's benefit"; and "Military Reserve

 Survivor Pension." Thus, in order to determine whether the parties intended

 Wife's survivor benefit coverage to continue after Husband reaches retirement

 age, we must first understand how Husband's military retirement program is

 structured.

[18] Because that structure is not discernible on the face of the settlement agreement,

 and because the parties' agreement uses terms that differ from the DOD

 documents explaining survivor benefit coverage, the dissolution court resorted

 to extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity in the agreement. We consider

 the extrinsic evidence most favorable to the dissolution court's judgment to

 unpack and interpret the QDRO provision. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 70

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 12 of 22
 N.E.3d at 839. In particular, we consider the same exhibits and testimony

 presented to the dissolution court on the issue of survivor benefit coverage.

[19] At the hearing on Wife's request for court intervention, Husband submitted to

 the dissolution court his Exhibit A, which included excerpts from the DOD's

 "Financial Management Regulations" explaining the structure of his military

 retirement program. The relevant excerpts provide as follows:

 • "[The Survivor Benefit Plan ("SBP") was established] to provide
 a survivor benefit program for military personnel in retirement . . . [that
 would] provide [a retiree's] survivors an annuity payable after the retiree's
 death." Table Exs. Vol. 3 at 83 (emphasis added).

 • "[The Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan, or] RCSBP[,]
 extends eligibility to the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) to Reserve
 Component members who would otherwise be eligible to receive retired
 pay except they have not yet reached retirement age. RCSBP allows
 members to provide an annuity based on their retired pay to qualified
 survivors." Id. at 168.

 • "The RCSBP is a benefit plan that enables members who served
 in the Reserve Components to leave a benefit called an ‘annuity.' An
 annuity is a monthly payment that normally lasts the lifetime of the
 beneficiary after the member passes away. The amount of the monthly
 payment is a percentage of the retired pay, and that percentage depends
 upon the election the member made when the member signed up for
 RCSBP." Id. at 169.

 • "A member electing to participate must designate an immediate election,
 a deferred election, or indicate a decision to delay the election until reaching
 retirement age. These are described as Options A, B, or C.

 A. Option A. The member defers a survivor annuity
 election or declines coverage until retirement age. There is

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 13 of 22
 no coverage for the years between becoming eligible for
 retirement and reaching retirement entitlement age. If a
 member dies before reaching retirement age, no survivor
 annuity is payable. . . .

 B. Option B. The member elects to provide a deferred
 survivor annuity that begins on the date that the member
 would have attained the age of 60, or on the day after the
 member's death, whichever is later. . . .

 C. Option C. The member elects to provide an immediate
 survivor annuity beginning on the day after the member's death,
 whether before or after reaching retirement age."

• "Elections [of the RCSBP coverage] . . . are generally irrevocable unless
revoked before the expiration of the 90-day period[ for filing the elections]."

• "[One exception to the irrevocability of the RCSBP coverage is
that a] member may change the beneficiary election to . . . remove
former spouse coverage as shown in Chapter 43, section 4306[, which
requires a court order that permits such a change.]"

Id. at 119, 173-79 (emphases added).

Further, at the hearing, Husband testified as follows: "I had to elect SBP to get

the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan[,] which is the pre-retirement.

They're not severable in election. However, I have the option to cancel the SBP

soon after reaching retirement age." Tr. Vol. 2 at 18. In other words, Husband

elected Option C, which provides for immediate survivor coverage for Wife that

will continue after Husband has reached retirement age, unless he cancels that

coverage.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 14 of 22
 [20] Turning to the QDRO provision in the settlement agreement, the parties do not

 dispute that "Military Reserve Annuity Retirement" refers to Wife's share in

 and entitlement to a coverture fraction of Husband's "military retired pay,"

 which he will start receiving when he turns fifty-seven years old. Appellant's

 Br. at 6. The provision then continues and states that Wife "shall be treated as

 Husband's surviving spouse for the purpose of any pre-retirement survivor's

 benefit and shall be entitled to receive her Military Reserve Survivor Pension,

 free and clear of any claim by Husband." 6 Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 28

 (emphasis added). Thus, again, while the parties do not dispute that Wife is

 entitled to the pre-retirement survivor benefit, the QDRO provides that Wife is

 also entitled to receive her "Military Reserve Survivor Pension." The term

 "survivor pension" does not appear in the DOD documents. Rather, as

 discussed below, the survivor benefit is an annuity which includes post-

 retirement survivor benefit coverage.

[21] Husband's counsel told the dissolution court that "a military reserve survivor

 pension doesn't exist" but argued that it can be construed to mean the Reserve

 Component Survivor Benefit Plan, or "RCSBP," which counsel equated with

 "a pre-retirement survivor benefit and not a post-retirement benefit." Tr. Vol. 2

 at 21. In a memorandum submitted to the dissolution court, Husband asserted

 6
 In his brief on appeal, Husband modifies the meaning of this sentence by substituting the word "those" for
 the word "and" when he states that, "The sentence goes on to state that Wife shall receive those ‘Military
 Reserve Survivor Pension' or proceeds of the RCSPB free and clear of any claim by Husband." Appellant's
 Br. at 12 (emphasis added). In so doing, Husband equates the pre-retirement survivor benefit with the
 Military Reserve Survivor Pension, as if they were one and the same and co-extensive. They are not.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 15 of 22
 that the "only reserve annuity available to Wife is the RCSBP," Table Exs. Vol.

 3 at 8, and, likewise, in his brief on appeal Husband asserts that use of the word

 "Reserve" is a reference to the RCSBP, which, according to Husband includes

 only the pre-retirement benefit. Appellant's Br. at 12. As explained below, we

 cannot agree.

[22] The erroneous use of the term "survivor pension" rather than "survivor

 annuity" in the agreement does not affect our analysis. Regardless of the

 terminology, and accepting Husband's contention that the "Military Reserve

 Survivor Pension" mentioned in the agreement refers to the RCSBP, his

 contention that the RCSBP includes only a pre-retirement survivor benefit

 cannot be reconciled either with his own testimony or with the DOD evidence

 of the survivor annuity available under the Reserve Component Survivor

 Benefit Plan.

[23] Husband testified, correctly, that pre-retirement survivor coverage and post-

 retirement survivor coverage are "not severable" when an election for pre-

 retirement coverage is made. Tr. Vol. 2 at 18. In other words, there is no

 stand-alone pre-retirement survivor benefit. The DOD documents admitted

 into evidence at the hearing show that Husband had three options when he

 signed up for the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan, or RCSBP.

 Option A allows the member to defer a survivor annuity election until

 retirement age, and Option B allows the member to elect survivor annuity

 coverage that begins at retirement age. Husband chose Option C, the one

 option that provides survivor annuity coverage during both the pre-retirement

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 16 of 22
 and post-retirement periods. Thus, the RCSBP does not limit survivor coverage

 to the pre-retirement period, and all three options contemplate and provide for

 post-retirement coverage. And, as the DOD regulations make clear, an election

 under Option C, the option that Husband selected, provides a survivor benefit

 that pays an annuity "after the member's death, whether before or after

 reaching retirement age." Table Exs. Vol. 3 at 173-74.

[24] Husband equates and conflates pre-retirement survivor benefit coverage with

 the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan. However, while the RCSBP

 extends eligibility for survivor coverage to retired reservists who have not yet

 reached retirement age, pre-retirement-age survivor benefits are only one feature

 of the plan. Each of the three options for the RSCBP includes a post-retirement

 survivor annuity. Thus, Husband either misunderstands or misconstrues the

 RCSBP.

[25] Further, the QDRO provision in the parties' agreement states explicitly both

 that "Wife shall be treated as Husband's irrevocable beneficiary for Husband's

 Military Reserve Annuity Retirement" and that "Husband shall make the

 necessary election in a timely manner to effectuate survivor coverage for

 Wife[.]" Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 29. The first clause of this sentence is a

 declaration that Wife has an irrevocable present vested interest in a coverture

 fraction of Husband's military retired pay. The second clause of this sentence

 expressly provides that Husband shall elect "survivor coverage for Wife." There

 is no adjective modifying or qualifying the term "survivor coverage." The

 presence of these two clauses within the same sentence indicates that the

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 17 of 22
 survivor coverage is contemporaneous with and appurtenant to Husband's

 retirement pay. As such, this sentence connects Wife's survivor benefit

 coverage directly to Husband's military retired pay, which is, of course, his

 post-retirement annuity. And this provision corresponds exactly with the post-

 retirement coverage under Option C, which Husband elected.

[26] Likewise, the evidence does not support Husband's contention that under the

 settlement agreement he has a unilateral, unqualified right to cancel Wife's

 survivor benefit coverage after he reaches retirement age. First, there is no

 provision within the agreement to that effect. Second, Husband's military

 retirement plan states that if a plan participant is required to provide former

 spouse coverage based on a court order, he can only change the election by

 providing "a certified copy of a court order that permits such a change." Table

 Exs. Vol. 3 at 119 ("Changes to a Former Spouse Election"). Husband's

 contention fails to account for DOD restrictions on the cancellation of former

 spouse survivor coverage.

[27] Thus, contrary to Husband's assertions that the settlement agreement does not

 provide for a post-retirement survivor benefit and that he is entitled to "cancel"

 the survivor benefit "after reaching retirement age.," Tr. Vol. 2 at 18, Wife's

 survivor coverage will continue after Husband attains retirement age. And the

 settlement agreement provides that Husband shall not "take any action which

 defeats or impairs the value which Wife is to receive pursuant to the provisions

 hereunder" including any "subsequent designation" that "may impair or

 diminish Wife's benefit." Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 29. This means that

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 18 of 22
 Husband may not cancel or alter his election for Wife's survivor benefit

 coverage.

[28] In sum, Husband elected survivor coverage for Wife effective during his pre-

 retirement period. By its terms, that coverage continues until Husband's death

 and provides survivor benefit coverage for Wife, whether Husband dies before

 or after his retirement age. And the parties' settlement agreement nullifies and

 supersedes any option Husband might have otherwise had to cancel Wife's

 post-retirement survivor benefits once he reaches retirement age. We hold that

 the dissolution court did not err when it found that Wife is entitled to the

 survivor benefit during both the pre-retirement and post-retirement periods.

 Issue Two: Premiums

[29] Husband next contends that the dissolution court erred when it modified the

 parties' settlement agreement to add a missing term, namely, the parties'

 obligation to share the cost of the premiums for the post-retirement survivor

 coverage. Indiana Code Section 31-15-2-17 (2019) provides in relevant part as

 follows:

 (a) To promote the amicable settlements of disputes that have
 arisen or may arise between the parties to a marriage attendant
 upon the dissolution of their marriage, the parties may agree in
 writing to provisions for:

 ***

 (2) the disposition of any property owned by either or
 both of the parties; . . . .

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 19 of 22
 (b) In an action for dissolution of marriage:

 (1) the terms of the agreement, if approved by the
 court, shall be incorporated and merged into the
 decree and the parties shall be ordered to perform the
 terms; . . . .

 (c) The disposition of property settled by an agreement described
 in subsection (a) and incorporated and merged into the decree is
 not subject to subsequent modification by the court, except as the
 agreement prescribes or the parties subsequently consent.

 (Emphasis added).

[30] Husband consented to the court's determination of how survivor benefit

 premiums will be paid and does not challenge the dissolution court's order that

 each party pay fifty percent of the premiums for the pre-retirement survivor

 benefits. On appeal, however, Husband contends that he "never agreed to

 designate Wife as the beneficiary" of post-retirement survivor benefits and that,

 "[a]bsent an express provision in the agreement to the contrary," Wife has

 "waived any entitlement to [a] survivor or a beneficiary right" derived from

 Husband's military retired pay. Appellant's Br. at 16. In other words, Husband

 contends that after he reaches retirement age, Wife is entitled only to her

 coverture fraction of his military retired pay and nothing else.

[31] As with Issue One, Husband's challenge to the order that he pay premiums for

 post-retirement coverage turns on the premise that the settlement agreement

 provides for only pre-retirement survivor benefits. We have concluded

 otherwise, that the QDRO provides without qualification that Husband shall

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 20 of 22
 elect "survivor coverage for Wife" and that the agreement includes both pre-

 retirement and post-retirement survivor benefits. And Wife has not waived her

 entitlement to those benefits expressly provided for in the agreement. We

 conclude that the court has properly interpreted the agreement and, with the

 consent of the parties, has only modified the agreement to provide for how the

 survivor benefit coverage premiums will be paid.

 Conclusion

[32] At the hearing on Wife's motion for court intervention, the parties agreed that

 the cost of the premiums for the survivor benefit plan had not been accounted

 for in the settlement agreement, and they consented to have the court determine

 who should pay the premiums for that coverage. As such, on the question of

 who should pay the premiums, the parties consented to the court's subsequent

 modification of their agreement. Husband's assertion on appeal that the

 modification violated the terms of the parties' agreement because he only

 agreed to pre-retirement survivor coverage is incorrect. Both the text of the

 agreement and the corresponding DOD regulations providing for former spouse

 survivor coverage demonstrate otherwise. In response to Husband's motion to

 clarify, the dissolution court did not err when it held that under the agreement

 Wife is entitled to both pre-retirement and post-retirement survivor benefits and

 that the parties shall each pay fifty percent (50%) of the premiums for that

 coverage.

[33] Affirmed.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 21 of 22
 Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-DC-2385 | May 19, 2020 Page 22 of 22