Case Title: Downs v. Downs

Citation: 

Docket Number: 92-025

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 92-025


 Kevin A. Downs                               Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Chittenden Family Court

 Susan A. Downs                                November Term, 1992


 Matthew I. Katz, J.

 Norman R. Blais of Blais, Cain, Keller & Fowler, Inc., Burlington, for
   plaintiff-appellant

 Robert B. Hemley and Normal Williams of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for
   defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Kevin and Susan Downs both appeal from a final judgment
 for maintenance in which the family court, after considering the future
 value of Kevin's medical degree, awarded Susan $203,269.  Kevin also appeals
 the family court's award of attorney's fees.  We affirm.
      Kevin and Susan were married in August of 1976.  At that time, Kevin,
 who had just graduated from college, and Susan, who had completed three
 years of university study, agreed that she would leave school and work while
 he attended medical school.  Susan worked as a clerk at a department store
 from the fall of 1976 until March of 1980, a month before the birth of the
 parties' first child.  Susan did not work outside the home after the birth
 of the parties' first child.  A second child was born in 1982.  In August
 of 1983, Kevin moved out of the family home, and later that year, filed for
 divorce.  Kevin finished his residency in 1984 and began work as an
 obstetrician and gynecologist.  Kevin's income has increased from $78,500
 in 1985 (the year of the divorce) to $195,500 in 1991.
      This is the third appeal to this Court arising from this divorce.  In
 Downs I, we reversed a revised trial court order because it was issued after
 the expiration of the nisi period.  150 Vt. 647, 549 A.2d 1382 (1988).  In
 Downs II, we vacated the original property and maintenance order because the
 trial court incorrectly treated Kevin's increased earning potential as an
 asset to be divided under 15 V.S.A. { 751, the property settlement statute.
 154 Vt. 161, 165-66, 574 A.2d 156, 158-59 (1990).  Now, each party appeals
 the amount of the maintenance awarded; Kevin argues the award is too high
 and Susan argues it is too low. In addition, Kevin appeals the award of
 attorney's fees to Susan.
                            I.  Maintenance Award
      Each party contends that the family court failed to follow Downs II
 when it fashioned the award on appeal.  Kevin argues that the court devoted
 too much attention to the future value of the diploma and not enough
 attention to Susan's actual contributions to the obtaining of the degree.
 In addition, Kevin claims that the award is simply too high compared to
 maintenance awards ordered in other jurisdictions.  Susan argues that the
 award is too low because it does not mathematically equalize the parties'
 incomes and because the award does not extend until the children attain the
 age of majority.
      The family court was faced with the task of applying the holding in
 Downs II, which states, "[W]hen one spouse obtains a professional degree
 during the marriage, but the marriage ends before the benefits of the degree
 can be realized, the future value of the professional degree is a relevant
 factor to be considered in reaching a just and equitable maintenance award."
 154 Vt. at 167, 574 A.2d  at 159.  We also held that, in diploma-divorce
 situations, maintenance is "'a flexible tool by which the parties' standard
 of living may be equalized for an appropriate period of time.'"  Id. at 166-
 67, 574 A.2d  at 159 (quoting Washburn v. Washburn,