Case Title: Kohut v. Kohut

Citation: 164 Vt 40, 663 A.2d 942

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-07-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
KOHUT_V_KOHUT.93-529; 164 Vt 40; 663 A.2d 942

[Filed 21-Jul-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. 93-529


Eileen J. Kohut                                   Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Chittenden Family Court


William Kohut                                     November Term, 1994



Alden T. Bryan, J.

Sandra L. Baird and Anne S. Locke, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

Douglas L. Molde and Leslie Black of Molde & Black, P.C., Johnson, for
defendant-appellant 



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



     MORSE, J.    Defendant-husband appeals a final order of the Chittenden
Family Court challenging, among other things, the maintenance award to
plaintiff-wife.  We affirm. 

     The parties were married for thirteen years and had three children
before they legally separated in 1991. The couple lived in a $400,000 home
and owned two expensive cars and a luxury boat. Both agree, however, that
they lived beyond their means.  The home was sold to pay the marital debts
and the remaining proceeds of $7,087 were put in escrow awaiting the final
disposition of marital property. 

     The court found that defendant had an earning capacity of $65,000 based
on his annual salary at a job which he voluntarily left shortly before the
final hearing.  It further found that plaintiff was a licensed practical
nurse with a part-time job and an earning capacity of $9,000 annually. 
Plaintiff was on welfare at the time of the final hearing because defendant
had failed 

 

to pay temporary maintenance and child support payments as previously
ordered.  The court ordered the payment of $500 per month in permanent
maintenance because it concluded that plaintiff was unable to meet her
expenses without maintenance in addition to child support for the couple's
three children, and because plaintiff's earning capacity would never equal
defendant's. 

     Defendant first argues that because plaintiff did not seek permanent
maintenance he was deprived of the opportunity to be heard on the issue.  He
relies on this Court's decision in Nichols v. Nichols, 133 Vt. 370, 371,