S. Ct. Civ. No. 2015-0051

Considering a former husband's appeal from the Superior Court's order denying his motion to modify a 2007 settlement agreement reached in divorce proceedings with his former wife that was incorporated into the divorce decree, no error is found in the Superior Court's ruling denying the husband's request to be relieved from paying a portion of his pension to his former wife under the terms of the settlement agreement. Regardless of whether the pension was marital property subject to distribution during divorce proceedings, nothing prevented the parties from including it in the 2007 settlement agreement. The husband's assertion of changed circumstances warranting modification of the settlement agreement were supported only by his attorney's unsworn statements at the hearing regarding the husband's cancer diagnosis, and it is well-established that such representations are not evidence. In addition, his argument that principles of equity required the Superior Court to impose an end date on the wife's receipt of a portion of his pension benefits is deemed waived under Supreme Court Rule 22(m), because the Superior Court found that the parties intended for this provision of the settlement agreement to continue indefinitely based on the formula set out in Fuentes v. Fuentes, 41 V.I. 86 (V.I. Super. Ct. 1999), and he failed to challenge this finding or cite any authority supporting his assertion that the settlement he agreed to is somehow inequitable. Thus, the former husband failed to demonstrate a substantial and continuing change in circumstances that would justify modifying the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Superior Court's order is affirmed.