Case Title: Fiske v. Boudreau

Citation: 164 Vt 263, 668 A.2d 1285

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-10-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
FISKE_V_BOUDREAU.94-070; 164 Vt 263; 668 A.2d 1285

[Filed 20-Oct-1995]

       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. 94-070


 Sheryl Fiske                                      Supreme Court

                                                   On Appeal from
     v.                                            Franklin Family Court

 Pierre Boudreau                                   June Term, 1995



Linda Levitt, J.

Nicholas L. Hadden and Michael Rose, St. Albans, for plaintiff-appellee

Richard A. Gadbois, Enosburg Falls, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       GIBSON, J.   Defendant father appeals a Franklin Family Court order
  affirming a magistrate's decision awarding child support and a maintenance
  supplement to plaintiff mother in this parentage proceeding.  We affirm.

       The undisputed facts are as follows.  Prior to meeting defendant,
  plaintiff purchased a home in Richford.  The parties became intimate in
  1983, but never married.  In 1984, a son was born to plaintiff, and in
  1986, she deeded her home to defendant as nominee in order to qualify for
  federal housing benefits.  The parties did not live together until 1989,
  when they began construction of a new home in Enosburg on property owned
  solely by defendant.  They separated in 1990, and plaintiff and son moved
  back into the Richford property, which was in disrepair.  Plaintiff filed
  this parentage petition against defendant, who has acknowledged paternity. 
  Finding a disparity between the standards of living of the parties, the
  magistrate concluded that plaintiff was entitled to $600 per month for
  child support plus a maintenance supplement of $250 if she remained in the
  Richford home and $550 if she chose to move out of

 

  that property.  The family court affirmed the magistrate's decision,
  and this appeal followed.

       Defendant contends first that the magistrate lacked authority to award
  a maintenance supplement in a parentage proceeding, because 15 V.S.A. §
  661(a) limits a maintenance supplement to a "support obligation arising out
  of an action for divorce."  The issue was not raised before the magistrate,
  however, or in the family court proceeding and may not be raised for the
  first time on appeal.  See Bell v. Bell, ___ Vt. ___, ___,