COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA


Present:  Chief Judge Moon, Judge Coleman and Senior Judge Cole 
Argued at Richmond, Virginia


RAYMOND A. PENDLETON
                                                                                                                                                      OPINION BY
v.           Record No. 2055-95-2     JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 
                                                                                                                                                     JUNE 11, 1996
EVELYN M. PENDLETON


            FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY
                   Richard H. C. Taylor, Judge


          Donald K. Butler (Morano, Colan & Butler, on
          brief), for appellant.

          No brief or argument for appellee.


     In this appeal, the husband contends that the trial court
erred by ordering an increase in his spousal support obligation. 
He asserts that Code  20-109 precluded the court from
modifying spousal support where, as here, the parties
contractually agreed upon the amount of spousal support in their
property settlement agreement and the agreement had been approved
and incorporated into the final divorce decree.  We agree and
reverse the trial court's modification decree.
     Raymond A. Pendleton (husband) and Evelyn M. Pendleton
(wife) separated in July 1986.  They entered into a property
settlement agreement, as amended, that divided all of their
property and an amended agreement in which they divided their
property and included a requirement that husband pay wife spousal
support in the amount of $250 per week.  The agreement provided
that the court could modify spousal support only if husband
suffered a reduction in wages as a result of involuntary
termination or a medical or physical disability.  By order
dated February 12, 1992, the trial court "affirmed, ratified, and
incorporated" the parties' agreement into the final decree.
     Husband and wife amended the settlement agreement on May 19,
1992 to require husband to pay wife an additional $175 per month
in spousal support.  This amendment expressly provided that
husband's spousal support obligation was not otherwise altered or
amended under the settlement agreement and the additional $175
was for the purpose of enabling wife to purchase medical and
hospitalization insurance.
     On January 4, 1995, wife filed a motion requesting an
increase in spousal support.  Husband filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that the agreement and provisions of Code  20-109
precluded the court from being able to modify spousal support.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.  At the
modification hearing, wife presented evidence which showed that
her monthly expenses exceeded her monthly income.  The trial
court ordered an increase in spousal support from $250 to $350
per week, plus the additional $175 per month that the parties had
included in the amended property settlement agreement in May
1992.
     Code  20-109 authorizes the trial court to modify spousal
support and maintenance upon the petition of either party if the
court determines that there has been a material change in
circumstances that justifies a modification.  See Hollowell v.
Hollowell, 6 Va. App. 417, 419, 369 S.E.2d 451, 452 (1988). 
However, where the parties contract or stipulate to the amount of
spousal support and that agreement is filed without objection
prior to the entry of the final divorce decree, "no decree or
order directing the payment of support and maintenance for the
spouse . . . shall be entered except in accordance with that
stipulation or contract."  Code  20-109 (emphasis added). 
Parties who are sui juris may bilaterally contract and bind
themselves to the amount of spousal support that one spouse shall
be obligated to pay and to the amount that the other shall be
entitled to receive.  Accordingly, where, as here, the parties
have agreed to a sum of spousal support and the agreement has
been incorporated into the final decree of divorce, the trial
court does not have the authority to modify support, except as
provided in the agreement.  Parrillo v. Parrillo, 1 Va. App. 226,
228, 336 S.E.2d 23, 24 (1985).
     Here, husband and wife entered into a valid settlement
agreement which specified the amount of spousal support he would
pay and she would receive.  Wife did not object when the trial
court affirmed, ratified, and incorporated the agreement into the
final divorce decree.  The trial court held that it could modify
the agreement because it contained the provision that it "shall
be construed and governed in accordance with the law of the State
of Virginia."  The trial court ruled that because "the law of the
State of Virginia" allows it to modify spousal support, it had
the power to do so.  
     The court's construction of this general language is in
direct conflict with the specific provisions of Code  20-109,
which recognize the right of the parties to contract and bind
themselves as to spousal support.  The contract's pronouncement
that the agreement "shall be construed and governed in accordance
with the law of Virginia" was a choice of laws provision that
designated which state's law would govern the construction of the
contract and did not grant the trial court the authority to
modify spousal support contrary to the contract and Code 
 20-109.  Accordingly, we hold that the trial court exceeded its
authority under Code  20-109 by overruling husband's motion to
dismiss and by modifying the support agreement and decree.  We
reverse and remand the case to the trial court to vacate the
modified support award and to reinstate the former support award.

                                           Reversed and remanded.