Case Title: Russell v. Russell

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-03-01T00:00:00Z

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 89-564


Janet D. Russell                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Chittenden Superior Court

James V. Russell                             March Term, 1991


David A. Jenkins, J.

William E. Roper of Neuse, Smith, Roper & Venman, Middlebury, for
  plaintiff-appellee

John J. Bergeron and Norman C. Smith of Bergeron, Paradis, Coombs &
  Fitzpatrick, Burlington, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     MORSE, J.   This appeal from a divorce judgment entered eighteen
months after the hearing on the merits presents such a procedural morass
that a remand is necessary to reach an outcome in a manner consistent with
the civil rules.
     Following a divorce hearing held May 2, 1988, the trial court filed, on
August 18, 1988, a document entitled, "Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and
Notice of Decision."  In it, the court directed the husband's counsel to
prepare a judgment.  The decision divided the parties' net equity in marital
property relatively equally and awarded the wife $300 a week in maintenance.
For a pension distribution, the court stated:
           The parties shall share equally in pension pay when
         payment is received by [the husband].  Any pension which
         [the wife] may become entitled to through her employment
         or earnings shall be considered in any calculation or
         formula.  [The husband] shall be required to pay or
         cause to be paid such portion of his pension as will
         enable [the wife] to have no less pension income than
         [the husband], including social security payments.  [The
         husband] shall preserve [the wife's] interest so as to
         best accomplish equal pension payments when both are
         retired and living.

The parties had addressed whether the husband would provide the wife's
health insurance, but the notice of decision was silent on that issue.
     Although no judgment was prepared as ordered, on August 24 and August
29 the husband and the wife respectively filed V.R.C.P. 52(b) motions to
amend the notice of decision.  These motions were argued orally, without
additional evidence, on September 13, 1988.  Neither of the parties nor the
court acknowledged that Rule 52(b) applies only post judgment ("after entry
of judgment").  On November 2, 1988, the court filed a second "Notice of
Decision upon Motions" amending its original notice of decision and, among
other things, providing the wife with health insurance as additional
maintenance.  The court stated,
         The insurance shall continue not only for the three-year
         period requested but until she remarries, is covered by
         Medicaid or its equivalent, or regularly lives with
         another as a spouse.

     On December 1, 1988, the husband submitted a proposed judgment order to
the court.  The wife objected to portions, and the husband responded to the
objections.  A conference was held to discuss the proposed final order on
February 22, 1989.  The day before, February 21, the wife filed a motion to
"reconsider" under V.R.C.P. 60(b)(2) and 15 V.S.A. { 554.  This motion
alleged that the wife had quit her job due to a worsening diabetic
condition and needed more maintenance.  At the February 22 conference, the
court scheduled the motion to reconsider for evidentiary hearing.  On July
14, 1989, that hearing was held, and on September 6, 1989, the court filed a
"Memorandum of Decision upon Further Hearing."  The court increased
maintenance from $300 to $400 a week, but temporarily increased it by $800 a
month "while [the husband] has no substantial college expenses to meet for
the children of the parties," to end in any event on July 1, 1993.  The
court also added a provision that the husband pay the wife $10,000 in trust
to be applied toward the purchase of a home.  On November 2, 1989, the court
filed a "Final Order and Decree of Divorce."
     The husband raises six issues on appeal.
                                    I.
     The husband claims the court abused its discretion in awarding the wife
permanent, rather than rehabilitative, maintenance.
     The parties were married in December 1963, shortly after the wife
graduated from high school, and raised four children.  During the marriage,
the wife was primarily a homemaker.  She had some experience with home
decorating and as a secretary.  At the time of the first divorce hearing,
the wife worked at the Medical Center Hospital of Vermont as a secretary,
earning $7.50 per hour.  The husband was then 51 years old, the wife 44.
The court found the wife's health during the summer of 1988 to be as
follows:
         She is diabetic to the extent that she suffers
         depression and her eyesight is diminished and she
         suffers blurriness at times.  She is overweight.  She is
         participating, since September 1987, in an experimental
         diabetic research program associated with the University
         of Vermont College of Medicine.  She is not dependent
         yet on the drug insulin, but she is on a severe diet.

In contrast, at the time of the 1988 hearing, the husband was earning
$82,000 a year as a manager at General Electric Company.  He also was being
treated for depression due to difficulties at work and the breakup of the
marriage.
     Although the evidence suggested that the wife desired to pursue
training in a decorating career, the prospects that she would remotely
approach the husband's earning capacity were slim.  Spousal maintenance is
designed to correct "'vast inequality between the parties' financial
positions'" resulting from divorce.  Klein v. Klein, 150 Vt. 466, 473,