The belated-QDRO statute, §20-107.3(K)(4), is up for interpretation again in an appellate challenge to a QDRO that varied the terms of the agreement the parties had incorporated into their divorce decree – and did so one year later. The Court of Appeals points out that a court can't do that. The unappealed decree became final after 21 days so the trial court, when it got around to entering the QDRO a year later, could not lawfully add a clause saying that the wife would get a proper share of the "gains and losses" that the pension account had acquired and incurred since the decree. The agreement was unambiguous, providing that each would get half of the profit sharing plan, "valued as of the date of the agreement." That leaves no room for the "gains and losses" order. Baker v. Baker, ___ Va. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 17 VLW 8 (6/4/02).