Case Title: Phillips v. Phillips

Citation: 164 Vt 600, 664 A.2d 272

Docket Number: 94-075

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Phillips v. Phillips  (94-075); 164 Vt 600; 664 A.2d 272

[Filed 14-Jul-1995]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-075

                              MAY TERM, 1995


Roland T. Phillips, III              }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Bennington Family Court
                                     }
Carole L. Phillips                   }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S95-90BcFd


                    In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

     Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Bennington Family Court
requiring him to reimburse defendant for the amounts she expended to meet
her health insurance deductible during the period he was obligated to pay
the premium on such insurance.  We affirm in part and reverse in part.

     The parties were divorced on March 18, 1992 and the final order
required plaintiff "to maintain health insurance for [defendant] and for 
the children providing all benefits that existed on January 1, 1991 and
January 1, 1992."  Defendant moved to amend the order in a number of 
respects including claims that the court erred in not specifying the
length of time during which plaintiff had to maintain the health
insurance and that because there had been a change in health insurance
companies between January 1991 and January 1992, it was unclear as to
what coverage plaintiff was obligated to maintain.  The motion was denied
and the parties thereafter entered into an agreement purporting to
resolve all outstanding issues between them.  Portions of the stipulation
were incorporated into an amended final order, which contained identical
language to the original order with respect to the health insurance.
Defendant's concern regarding the change in policies between 1991 and 
1992 was not addressed.  The amended order limited plaintiff's obligation 
to ten years and provided for termination if defendant became employed
under certain conditions.

     Defendant filed a motion to enforce the order alleging that
plaintiff refused to abide by the terms with regard to the health
insurance.  At the hearing on the motion, the evidence disclosed that the
deductible amount on the health insurance had increased from $100 to
$500, and then to $1000; plaintiff initially paid the deductible when it
increased to $500, but refused to pay over $100 after the increase to
$1000.  The court found that in July 1992 plaintiff promised defendant
that he would continue to pay the policy's deductible, and ordered 
plaintiff to continue to pay the deductible for the length of his
obligation to provide the insurance.

     In this Court, plaintiff argues that the stipulation and its
incorporation into the amended final order settled all outstanding issues
between the parties and extinguished any oral contract. Defendant argues
that plaintiff's earlier agreement to pay the deductible eliminated this 
as a contested issue, and it was therefore not resolved by merger into
the final agreement.

     The trial court found that plaintiff had no obligation to pay the
deductible under either the original or amended order, but concluded
that, as part of the negotiations of potentially appealable issues,
plaintiff promised to pay the deductible in July 1992, and ordered
plaintiff to

 

reimburse defendant for the deductibles paid during the period of
obligation.

     We affirm the order requiring plaintiff to make the deductible
payments, but on different grounds.  See Hudson v. Town of East
Montpelier, 161 Vt. 168, 170,