Case Title: Knowles v. Thompson

Citation: 166 Vt. 414, 697 A.2d 335

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-04-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
Knowles v. Thompson  (96-057); 166 Vt. 414; 697 A.2d 335

[Filed 04-Apr-1997]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 6-May-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well asformal 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. 96-057

Bethany C. Knowles                                Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                           Windham Family Court

Michael L. Thompson                               September Term, 1996

Theresa S. DiMauro, J.

David G. Reid, Brattleboro, for plaintiff-appellee

Michael J. Hertz, Brattleboro, for defendant-appellant

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       MORSE, J.   Husband in a divorce action appeals from a final judgment
  of the Windham Family Court challenging, among other provisions, the order
  requiring him to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of the
  children for as long as the child support obligation remains in effect, and
  the order requiring him to provide child support beyond the age of
  majority.  We reverse the provision requiring child support beyond the age
  of majority, and affirm in all other respects.

       The parties were married in 1988, but had lived together since 1980. 
  They have four minor children.  In March of 1994, the parties separated. 
  In May of that year they signed a Memorandum of Understanding, which
  covered a variety of subjects, including child support, child custody,
  maintenance of a life insurance policy by husband, and disposition of the
  couple's limited personal property.  The agreement was incorporated by a
  magistrate into a temporary support order.  A short time later, both
  parties became dissatisfied with different provisions of

 

  the agreement and moved to modify or rescind them.  The court's final order
  and decree departed substantially from the terms of the agreement, but
  purported to uphold a provision requiring husband to provide child support
  beyond the age of majority if the children were enrolled as full-time
  college students.

       Husband's threshold contention is that the court erred in deviating
  from the exact terms of the parties' agreement.  It is clear from the
  record, however, that both parties challenged various provisions of the
  agreement, and the court was thus entitled to depart from its terms. A
  separation agreement is not binding when both parties seek, in effect, to
  modify it.  Cf. McCrea v. McCrea, 150 Vt. 204, 206,