Case Title: Lowery v. Lowery

Citation: 

Docket Number: 90-391

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-12-01T00:00:00Z

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. 90-391


Patricia A. Lowery                           Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Addison Superior Court

Vernon E. Lowery                             December Term, 1990


Frank G. Mahady, J.

Greene & Seaver, Inc., Burlington, for plaintiff-appellant

Caldbeck & Schweitzer, Shelburne, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff, Patricia Lowery, appeals from a judgment
modifying a California divorce maintenance order by reducing prospective
payments.  We reverse and remand.
     The parties were divorced in California in 1984.  Defendant was ordered
to pay $700 per month maintenance, "continuing until the death or remarriage
of [plaintiff], or further order of the court."  As additional maintenance,
defendant was ordered "to keep and maintain in full force and effect his
existing hospital and medical insurance available through his employment so
long as he is legally able to do so."  If there came a time when he could
not cover plaintiff, he was ordered to purchase "a comparable policy of
insurance" for her.  In either event, he was to pay "any uninsured medical,
hospital, or doctor bills" she incurred.  This supplemental maintenance
order was also to continue until plaintiff remarried or died or until
further order of the court.
     At the time of the California order, defendant earned $33,000 per
year.  Subsequently, defendant moved to Vermont where he became employed at
Simmonds Precision at a salary of $40,000 per year.  He was terminated from
that job on January 6, 1989, and began receiving unemployment compensation
at $169 per week.  In January 1990, defendant took a temporary job which
paid $19 per hour.
     In October of 1989, plaintiff brought a petition to enforce the
California maintenance order, alleging that defendant had ceased paying and
owed an arrearage. Defendant responded by seeking a modification of the
order.  After hearing, the court ordered defendant to pay an arrearage for
unpaid maintenance and medical bills up to January 8, 1990, the date on
which defendant petitioned for modification.  The court prospectively
modified the California order to reduce maintenance to $50 per month after
January 8, 1990.  The order is silent on defendant's duty to pay plaintiff's
medical bills after the modification.
     Plaintiff appeals, raising three alleged errors:  (1) the court had no
jurisdiction to modify the California maintenance order; (2) the evidence
did not support the maintenance reduction; and (3) the court improperly
failed to specify whether defendant was obligated to pay plaintiff's future
medical expenses.  Although we find that the court had the power to modify
the California order, we conclude that it went too far in that modification
and reverse and remand for a new determination of defendant's obligation to
pay maintenance and plaintiff's medical expenses after January 8, 1990.
     Plaintiff's claim that the court had no power to modify the California
order is based on our decision in Grant v. Grant, 136 Vt. 9, 14,