Case Title: Braun v. Greenblatt

Citation: 2007 VT 53

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Braun v. Greenblatt (2005-318)

2007 VT 53

[Filed 15-Jun-2007]


       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.


                                 2007 VT 53

                                No. 2005-318


  Sheila Braun                                   Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Chittenden Family Court


  Marc Greenblatt                                January Term, 2007


  Ben W. Joseph, J.

  Brian K. Valentine and Caryn E. Waxman of Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC,
    Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Susan M. Murray and Erin Miller Heins of Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP,
    Burlington, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Davenport, Supr. J.,  Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  DAVENPORT, Supr. J., Specially Assigned.   Husband appeals
  from a family court post-judgment modification order that tripled his
  monthly spousal maintenance obligation and extended its duration
  indefinitely.  Husband argues that the court committed numerous reversible
  errors, including failing to find a real, substantial, and unanticipated
  change of circumstances and ordering an amount and duration of maintenance
  that constitute an abuse of discretion.  We reverse and remand. (FN1)

       ¶  2.  The parties married in December 1995 when both were thirty-four
  years old.  Earlier that year, wife quit a graduate school program and left
  a job where she was earning $41,000 per year as a computer programmer in
  Washington, D.C. in order to move to Vermont where her husband had been
  offered a position as a research physician at Fletcher Allen Medical Center
  and the University of Vermont.  Within a year of their wedding, the parties
  had their first child.  While husband continued to advance his career in
  oncology, wife assumed the role of primary caregiver and did not work
  outside the home.  A second child was born in August 1999, by which time
  the parties had separated.  After wife filed for divorce in September 1999,
  the parties negotiated a settlement agreement that provided for wife to
  continue as the children's primary caregiver.  The agreement contemplated
  the possibility that wife would home school the children and earn minimal
  or no income. 
   
       ¶  3.  At the time the stipulation was finalized and the divorce
  granted in December 2000, husband was earning an annual salary of
  $121,574.96 and wife had no earnings.  Under the terms of the agreement,
  wife was to receive spousal maintenance, child support, and maintenance
  supplement.  Although the marital home was awarded to husband, the parties
  agreed that wife could remain in the marital home after the divorce for up
  to thirteen months.  While she remained in the marital home, she was to
  receive $2,650 per month in spousal maintenance.  Once she moved out of the
  home, an event that was to occur no later than March 31, 2002, the
  obligation decreased to $2,350 per month.  

       ¶  4.  The current dispute over maintenance focuses on a troublesome
  provision regarding the renegotiation of the maintenance obligation after
  divorce:   

      The parties will renegotiate commencing May 1, 2004 what, if
    anything, shall be paid in spousal support after August 31, 2004. 
    It is the parties' intention that there be no presumption either
    in favor of or in opposition to the continuation of rehabilitative
    spousal support based on this Stipulation.  The parties
    specifically intend to defer this issue to 2004 and take a fresh
    look at it at that time, when they will have better information
    regarding their income and expenses at that time.  If the parties
    cannot reach agreement on this without assistance, they shall
    mediate this issue in good faith for not less than 5 sessions
    before requesting the assistance of the court. 

  The parties failed to reach any agreement as to what amount, if any,
  husband should pay in spousal maintenance after August 2004.  In December
  2004, after negotiation and mediation had failed, husband moved to
  terminate the obligation.  Wife filed a cross motion to continue
  maintenance at a level to be determined by the court and to enforce other
  provisions of the final order.  The family court heard two days of
  testimony in January and March 2005.  In addition to testimony by the
  parties, wife presented two expert witnesses: an accountant to analyze
  husband's income from 2000 to 2004, calculate arrears, and assess tax
  implications; and a career advisor to explain wife's career and education
  options for reentering the workforce.  At the end of the hearings, the
  court invited the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and
  conclusions of law. 
   
       ¶  5.  The family court's July 2005 decision adopted in large
  measure the proposed findings, conclusions, and order submitted by wife. 
  The court modified maintenance by increasing the monthly obligation to
  $6,300 per month plus "an amount to cover [wife's] monthly tax obligation" 
  for a five-year period retroactive to September 1, 2004.  After the five
  years, husband's obligation was to decrease dollar for dollar based on
  wife's actual income.  The order also provided that, for so long as
  maintenance continued, husband's obligation would increase based on either
  the percentage increase in his income, including investment income, or an
  annual cost-of-living adjustment.  The court further ordered that husband
  pay accumulated arrears owing from an income-increase provision in the
  final order, pay arrearages in the children's extracurricular and
  educational expenses, make deposits into one of the children's savings
  accounts, and pay the fees of wife's attorneys and expert witnesses. 
  Husband argues that the court erred first by failing to find a real,
  substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances that would support
  an exercise of subject matter jurisdiction and then by making a series of
  errors in modifying maintenance and enforcing the final order.  We first
  address the maintenance award and then the issues related to the
  calculation of the spousal maintenance arrearage, the enforcement of the
  provision related to the children's savings accounts and the award of
  attorney fees. 

                        I.  Spousal Maintenance Award
   
       ¶  6.  Spousal maintenance may be modified only "upon a showing of a
  real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances."  15 V.S.A. §
  758.  In the absence of the required change,  the court is without
  jurisdiction to modify a maintenance order.  Golden v. Cooper-Ellis, 2007
  VT 15, ¶ 57, __ Vt. __, __ A.2d __; Taylor v. Taylor, 175 Vt. 32, 36,