Case Title: Watson v. Watson

Citation: 175 Vt. 622, 2003 VT 80, 833 A.2d 869

Docket Number: 2002-293

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-09-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Watson v. Watson (2002-293); 175 Vt. 622; 833 A.2d 869

2003 VT 80

[Filed 05-Sept-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 80

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-293

                              APRIL TERM, 2003

  Marie M. Watson	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Caledonia Family Court
                                       }
  David Watson	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 179-8-01 CaDm

                                                Trial Judge:  M. Kathleen Manley

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

       ¶  1.  Husband challenges the Caledonia Family Court's award of
  permanent maintenance  to wife in this appeal from a final order of
  divorce.  We affirm.  

       ¶  2.  The parties, who have no children, were married for
  approximately seventeen years before they separated in the early summer of
  2001.  At that time, wife was forty years old and husband was forty-five. 
  The parties owned no real property together and had few assets at the time
  of the divorce hearing in May 2002.  Husband has an eighth grade education,
  and wife holds a high school diploma.  While married, both parties worked
  as truck drivers.  Their combined income was approximately $57,600.  In
  1999, wife suffered an aneurysm that left her unable to work.  Although
  husband has an arthritic condition in his knee and hip that makes it
  difficult to walk or stand for a long period of time, the condition does
  not affect his employability as a truck driver. 

       ¶  3.  Prior to her aneurysm, wife earned roughly $1,600 per month. 
  She now collects monthly social security disability benefits in the amount
  of $740.  Husband's take-home pay is approximately $2,390 each month.  The
  court found that the parties did not live extravagantly during their
  marriage but were able to take vacations.  Since their separation, husband
  has maintained the same living standard the parties enjoyed while they were
  married.  In contrast, wife's limited income does not allow her to maintain
  "even a modicum of a reasonable living style, much less the standard of
  living that was maintained by the parties at the time they were together." 
  The court found that unlike husband, wife could not contribute money to a
  savings or retirement account, purchase gifts for family and friends, take
  a vacation, or spend money on entertainment.  It also found that if wife
  had housing expenses on top of her other expenses, she would need public
  assistance.  The court consequently ordered husband to pay wife $700 per
  month in permanent maintenance.  Husband appealed the decision to this
  Court.
   
       ¶  4.  Maintenance seeks to, among other things, ameliorate the
  financial impact of divorce.  See Naumann v. Kurz, 152 Vt. 355, 359, 566 A.2d 1342, 1344 (1989) (maintenance intended to reduce financial impact of
  divorce and compensate spouse for homemaking contributions to family's well
  being).  Thus, the family court is authorized to award maintenance if the
  receiving party does not have enough income, through employment or
  otherwise, or property to provide for his or her reasonable needs at the
  standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.  15 V.S.A. § 752(a); Kohut
  v. Kohut, 164 Vt. 40, 43,