By eliminating the husband`s ability to be employed by the company, the wife receives a sum of 20% of the husband`s W-2 and K-1″ and the parties` intention to recalculate the spouses` alimony each year using the husband`s last W-2 and K-1, instead of being calculated once on the basis of the husband`s W-2 and K-1 of his last year of employment in the company, then for the remainder of the ten-year payment term. The intention was evidenced by the use of tax documents drawn up each year and by the language in which the spouse`s maintenance payments are linked to the husband`s income and, therefore, to his ability to pay. 1999-White v. White, 257 Va. 139 The court interpreted an error in the interpretation of the spouse`s consent to pay the mortgage on the marital residence in 120 equivalent payments to the bank as an obligation to pay spousal assistance after payment of the mortgage debt. The husband ended monthly mortgage payments when the wife sold the house and used the proceeds to pay off the remaining mortgage debts. Despite the language in the final divorce settlement, the agreement registered as „an agreement. with respect to maintenance and upkeep,“ the agreement did not provide for the husband to be able to make payments to the wife and did not demonstrate any intention on the part of the parties that the commitment would survive the satisfaction of the mortgage debt, regardless of how the debt was extinguished. .