Case Title: Plaintiff v. Defendant

Citation: 177 Vt. 502, 2004 VT 83, 857 A.2d 798

Docket Number: 2002-499

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Jenike v Jenike (2002-499); 177 Vt. 502; 857 A.2d 798

2004 VT 83

[Filed 03-Aug-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 83

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-499

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2003

  Donna Rae Jenike	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Windsor Family Court
                                       }	
  Ian Jenike	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 5-1-00 Wrdm

                                                Trial Judge: Paul F. Hudson

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  In this divorce action, husband appeals the Windsor Family
  Court's decisions on property and spousal maintenance.  We reverse and
  remand because the court impermissibly based the maintenance award on
  husband's emotional abuse of wife and erred in its consideration of
  husband's depletion of marital property. 

       ¶  2.  The parties were married for fifteen years and had no
  children together.  At the time of the final divorce hearing in 2002, wife
  was fifty-four years old and husband was fifty-six years old.  Both parties
  hold college degrees.  Husband is an engineer and works for the Vermont
  Department of Transportation.  Wife works at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical
  Center as a laboratory service technician.  Husband's annual employment
  salary is slightly higher than wife's.

       ¶  3.  During their marriage, the parties enjoyed a comfortable
  lifestyle, taking trips, eating frequently in excellent restaurants, and
  purchasing entertainment and sporting equipment, including a boat and
  vehicles.  Although husband had substantial investments and received an
  annual cash gift from his parents of $20,000, wife paid for most of the
  couple's living expenses.  Husband invested most of his income and the
  annual gift from his parents in the stock market.  He imposed what the
  trial court described as "financial tyranny" on wife, acting unilaterally
  in trading stock and hiding financial investments and stock performance
  from her.  

       ¶  4.  One of husband's investment accounts with Fidelity Investments
  was the subject of some controversy in the parties' litigation.  The
  account was worth $395,000 on December 31, 1999, a little over one week
  before wife filed for divorce.  Within ten days after wife filed her
  divorce complaint, husband withdrew $145,000 from the Fidelity account
  which he used to pay his federal and state income taxes and to pay off the
  mortgage on his home.  Wife neither consented to the withdrawals nor
  received any proceeds from them.  The court found that husband further
  depleted the Fidelity account while this action was pending by continuing
  to buy and sell stock during a declining market.  At the time of the final
  hearing, the investment account's value was $15,000.  The court found that
  husband's withdrawals and continued manipulation of the investment account
  violated the court's interim order prohibiting the parties from concealing,
  damaging, dissipating, selling, assigning, or otherwise transferring any
  marital property "except by agreement or to meet the customary demands of
  everyday life or to conduct business in the ordinary course." (FN1) 
  Because of husband's unilateral actions, the court determined that the
  account's value for property distribution purposes was $260,000.

       ¶  5.  Wife had little, if any, retirement savings before she
  married husband, but was able to accumulate approximately $177,979 in
  retirement savings during the parties' marriage.  Wife owns a home and a
  land-locked lot in Springfield, Vermont that she and her brother inherited
  from their mother.  The value of wife's interests in both properties is
  roughly $81,500.  

       ¶  6.  In addition to evidence on the parties' assets, the court
  heard evidence on husband's mistreatment of wife.  The court found that
  husband treated wife with progressive disdain and contempt, threatened her
  life, and committed adultery.  Husband's search for female companionship
  other than his wife's was detailed in the court's order and need not be
  repeated here.  The court found, however, that husband engaged in an
  "ongoing callous plot" designed to "inflict as much emotional pain as he
  possibly could on a devoted, forgiving wife."  After wife filed for
  divorce, husband frequently left threatening messages on wife's answering
  machine.  The court heard some of the recorded messages during trial and
  commented in its final order that the messages were profane, degrading, and
  evidenced a "man who was totally out of control and terminally afflicted by
  the 'Midas Touch.' " Because of husband's abuse and threats to use lethal
  force against wife, the court's final order made permanent a
  relief-from-abuse order it had entered in July 2001.

       ¶  7.  The court ultimately found that husband was responsible for
  the failure of the parties' marriage, and concluded that the wife was
  entitled to more than half of the combined marital assets.  It divided the
  property and ordered husband to pay wife a sum of $100,000 as part of the
  settlement.  In addition, the court concluded that: 

    because of [husband's] emotional abuse to [wife], . . . not  only
    does he pay part of her attorneys fees, but it is also  reasonable
    that he pay to [wife] spousal maintenance in the  amount of $300
    per month for a period of 15 years . . . . The  parties
    established an excellent standard of living during the  marriage,
    and it was only brought to an end because of  defendant's conduct.  

  After the court denied husband's post-judgment motion for reconsideration,
  husband took the present appeal.

       ¶  8.  Husband first attacks the maintenance award.  He claims that
  the court awarded maintenance to punish him for his mistreatment of wife
  while they were married.  Husband argues that fault and punishment are not
  factors the court may consider when deciding whether to award maintenance. 
  On appeal, the party claiming error in a property and maintenance award
  must show that no reasonable basis exists to support the award.  Bell v.
  Bell, 162 Vt. 192, 197-98,