validity and enforceability of the agreement, which, among its provisions, “require[d] the husband to pay for and maintain certain life insurance policies on his life until the youngest child becomes 23 and to name a trust for the benefit of the children as beneficiary of these policies.” Id. at 653-54, 203 S.E.2d at 125. A payment from an insurance company, a third party, upon the death of the husband is not a support payment from the estate of the husband. Furthermore, as earlier noted, this was a valid court-approved agreement between the parties that was consistent with the public policy favoring voluntary resolution of disputes concerning maintenance and support. See Morris, 216 Va. at 459, 219 S.E.2d at 867. See also Cutshaw v. Cutshaw, 220 Va. 638, 641, 261 S.E.2d 52, 54 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that the trial judge
holding that the trial court had authority to enforce a marital property settlement agreement that had not been incorporated into the parties final divorce decree recognizing a divorce decree which incorporates a property settlement agreement is a final and conclusive adjudication   holding that the jurisdiction of the divorce court with regard to support and maintenance is statutorily determined unless otherwise provided by agreement incorporated into the divorce decree holding that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hold a party in contempt where the separation agreement was incorporated but not merged into a divorce decree holding that the trial judge had the power to incorporate a settlement agreement in a decree following the entry of a decree of divorce