Case Title: Bell v. Bell

Citation: 162 Vt. 192, 643 A.2d 846

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
BELL_V_BELL.92-107; 162 Vt. 192; 643 A.2d 846

[Opinion Filed May 20, 1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied June 17, 1994]

 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. 92-107 and 92-635


 Susan M. Bell                                Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Chittenden Family Court

 David C. Bell                                October Term, 1993




 Amy Marie Davenport, J.  (divorce)

 Alden T. Bryan, J.  (motion to stay)

 Nancy Corsones of Corsones & Corsones, Rutland, for plaintiff-appellant

 John J. Bergeron and Norman C. Smith of Bergeron, Paradis, Fitzpatrick &
   Smith, Burlington, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      JOHNSON, J.    Plaintiff wife appeals from a divorce order, contesting
 the Chittenden Family Court's award of marital property and maintenance.  We
 affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings based
 on our conclusion that the trial court did not assign all of the marital
 assets and denied a cost-of-living adjustment award for an inadequate
 reason.
      The parties were married in 1960 and separated in the Fall of 1989.
 They had three children, including a son who died when he was 18.  At the
 time of the final hearing, wife was 53 years old.  She had completed three

 

 years of college and, for approximately ten years during the marriage, she
 co-owned and worked in a women's apparel store, which she eventually sold.
 She then performed accounting and bookkeeping for her husband's business for
 about a year and a half, until the separation.  She is in good physical
 health, but suffers from depression.  At the time of trial, wife was
 unemployed.  After taking into account wife's work experience and emotional
 health, the court concluded that wife's earning capacity is between $7,000
 and $10,000.
      At the time of the final hearing, husband was 54 years old and also in
 good physical health, although he had a kidney removed because of cancer
 within the year prior to trial.  Throughout the marriage, he was employed as
 a life insurance agent, earned far more than wife and enjoyed extensive
 travel, a boat, and an airplane.  Husband's 1990 business income for tax
 purposes was $76,218 and his gross income was $166,753.
      The parties enjoyed a comfortable standard of living during their
 marriage, based on income from husband's business, various real estate
 investments, income generated from land husband inherited during the
 marriage, borrowed money, and life insurance proceeds received on their
 son's death.  The court found, however, that the parties had no current
 investments other than an IRA account, a life insurance policy, and a
 $45,000 promissory note on a property on College Street in Burlington
 ("College Street note").  Based on this evidence, the court found that the
 parties were living beyond their means.
      The court found that husband was at fault in the breakup of the
 marriage because of numerous infidelities and that wife was "psychologically

 

 devastated" by the separation and her repeated discoveries of the
 infidelities.
      The sole issues before the court were maintenance and property
 division.  After the final hearing, the court awarded the following to the
 wife:
           IRAs                                       $ 33,294
           54.5% of husband's pension                   60,000
           Car                                          10,000
           Home Furnishings                             12,000
           Equity in Home                               37,000

           TOTAL                                      $152,294

 The Court awarded the following to the husband:
           "Split-Dollar" Life Insurance (cash value) $ 19,000
           45.5% of husband's pension                   50,000
           Car                                          10,000
           Boat (partial interest)                       3,500
           Airplane (partial interest)                   6,500

           TOTAL                                      $ 89,000

 The court also awarded husband his business and all assets owned by the
 business.  In addition, husband was directed to pay debts for which he
 states the total was $47,626.  The court specifically directed how the
 proceeds from the $45,000 College Street note should be disbursed.
      Wife requested $3,500 per month in maintenance, and husband proposed
 $1,500.  The court ordered maintenance for wife of $2,500 per month until
 February 1, 2002 and $1,000 per month thereafter.  The court did not provide
 for cost-of-living increases.  The court ordered husband to maintain wife as
 the beneficiary on the split-dollar life insurance policy and group life
 insurance policy until husband was 65 years old or to obtain another life
 insurance policy with an equivalent death benefit with wife as the
 beneficiary.  Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 59(e), wife moved to amend the judgment

 

 on numerous grounds.  The court issued an order amending some findings, but
 declined to reconsider its decisions regarding the cost-of-living clause and
 the value of the marital home.
      Wife appealed the order, and thereafter moved to stay husband's receipt
 of the proceeds of the College Street note.  That motion was denied, and the
 appeal from that denial has been consolidated with the divorce appeal.(FN1)
                                     I.
      Wife argues first that the court erred in failing to amend its November
 8, 1991 finding valuing the marital home at $315,000, because the home
 subsequently sold for only $310,000.  The result was a reduction in net
 proceeds from sale of the house from $37,000 to $32,000, and thus a
 reduction in wife's property award.
      We have stated that "[a]s a general proposition, marital assets should
 be valued as close to the date of trial as possible."  Albarelli v.
 Albarelli, 152 Vt. 46, 48, 564 A.2d 598, 599 (1989).  The concern addressed
 by the Albarelli rule, however, is that courts not rely on appraisal
 evidence that is stale at the time of trial.  The rule does not address
 changes that occur after issuance of the court's initial order.  The purpose
 of motions to amend the judgment is to examine the correctness of matters
 before the court at trial.  See In re Robinson/Keir Partnership, 154 Vt. 50,
 54, 573 A.2d 1188, 1190 (1990) (Rule 59(e) supports "'reconsideration of
 matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.'") (quoting White
 v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec.,