Bryan "he was my guru before he was everyone else's" Garner likes to excoriate the four little S words -- so, such, same and said. They're fine when used in their normal English meanings, but lawyers like to use them as pronouns, adverbs, articles or something. And like actual pronouns, they get inserted in situations where the writer may know what they are meant to refer to, but the text includes multiple words and clauses they might be standing in for. They give the writer a false sense of competence and precision -- if you replace them with words like "the," "this," "that," "the other thing," "that way," etc., it'll be a lot clearer and straightforward-sounding, or else it'll make you realize how clear it isn't, before it's too late.
So it was in Jones v. Jones, Va. Ct. App. Unpublished, July 2, 2019. The separation agreement said:
The parties agree that the Husband currently receives $1,497.00 per month ... for a lump disability-retirement payment. Said amount is not taxable and shall continue for the life of the Husband. Beginning the first day of each month following the date of this Agreement and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter the Husband shall pay to the Wife one-half of such monthly benefit.
So, is "such monthly benefit" eternally the $1,497, or does it refer to the "lump disability-retirement payment," however much it "currently" may be? The answer is that the ex-wife gets half the payment, including any increases in it, but it took Circuit Court and appeals court litigation to win that point. The Court of Appeals did not find that that meaning was simply obvious -- rather, it declared the wording "ambiguous" because “'such monthly benefit,' may be understood in more than one way." It considers three circumstances in order to figure out how to interpret it:
(1) The word "currently" suggests that now it's $1,497, but later it might be something else. "Had the parties intended a fixed amount, they could have simply stated that Brenda would receive $750. Or they could have said Brenda was to receive one-half such amount. Instead, the parties described the benefit and said Brenda was to receive one-half of such monthly benefit. This language indicates that it was the benefit, not the amount, that was to be divided." [Or they could have done it without using "such" again, if they had consulted me or Brian.]
(2) "When husband learned that his benefit would be decreased by $300, he asked former wife to share in the decrease. The fact that former husband asked for the decrease and that former wife was willing to consider it upon production of the pay advice shows that both parties believed that wife was to receive half the benefit rather than a specific sum.