Case Title: Camisa v. Camisa

Citation: 168 Vt. 563, 714 A.2d 641

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-05-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Camisa v. Camisa  (97-083); 168 Vt. 563; 714 A.2d 641

[Filed 8-May-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-083

                             DECEMBER TERM, 1997

Kathleen Keenan Camisa          }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     Franklin Family Court
                                }
Robert J. Camisa                }
                                }     DOCKET NO. F106-4-91 Frdm

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

       Wife appeals from a divorce judgment, contending that the family court
  erred by (1) using the date of the court's initial divorce decree in
  calculating the proportion of retirement benefits attributable to the
  marriage; (2) declining to order retroactive maintenance payments and
  reimbursement of health insurance payments; (3) granting husband's motion
  to reconsider; and (4) improperly valuing certain marital assets.  We
  affirm.

       This is the second time this divorce action has come before us.  The
  initial divorce decree became final on April 13, 1992.  Husband appealed
  from that judgment, contending that the family court's division of marital
  assets was based upon erroneous findings and improperly included
  prejudgment interest, and that the award of maintenance was unsupported by
  the evidence.  We reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the
  court had erred in allocating husband's pension without determining the
  portion of benefits acquired during the marriage (the so-called "coverture
  fraction"), awarding prejudgment interest on certain assets, and failing to
  make adequate findings to support the maintenance award of $2,000 per month
  to wife.  Camisa v. Camisa, No. 92-377 (Vt. Feb. 1, 1994) (mem.).

       Following our remand, the case was retried and a new order, with new
  findings and conclusions, was entered in October 1996.  Among other
  provisions, the court ordered a division of marital assets providing
  approximately 60% to wife and 40% to husband, and required husband to pay
  maintenance to wife of $1,000 per month until he retires.  The court
  declined to order retroactive maintenance payments of $12,000, or
  reimbursement of health insurance premiums totalling $3,550.  To accomplish
  the 60/40 division, the court ordered husband to pay wife the amount of
  $17,000, later reduced to $12,860.  This appeal followed.

                                     I.

       Wife first contends the court erroneously allocated husband's
  retirement accounts by using the date of the initial divorce decree, April
  13, 1992, as the cutoff date for determining the so-called "coverture
  fraction," i.e., the proportion of the retirement accounts attributable to
  the marriage.  See McDermott v. McDermott, 150 Vt. 258, 261,