Case Title: Gulian v. Gulian

Citation: 173 Vt. 157, 790 A.2d 1116

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Gulian v. Gulian (99-207); 173 Vt. 157; 790 A.2d 1116

[Filed 09-Nov-2001]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 04-Dec-2001]

       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. 99-207

Carole Gulian	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Washington Family Court

George Gulian	                                 May Term, 2000

M. Kathleen Manley, J.

Kimberly B. Cheney of Cheney, Brock & Saudek, P.C., Montpelier, for 
  Plaintiff-Appellant.

Marsha Smith Meekins of Roesler, Whittlesey, Meekins & Amidon, Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Dimotsis, D.J., 
          Specially Assigned

       JOHNSON, J.   Mother Carole (Gulian) Warner appeals from a divorce
  judgment of the  Washington Family Court.  She contends that the trial
  court abused its discretion in (1) setting the  amount of maintenance
  because the award did not equalize the incomes between her and father 
  George Gulian; and (2) setting the duration of maintenance at nine years,
  terminating when the  youngest child reached the age of majority.  We
  reverse the trial court's award because the court did  not separate the
  maintenance award from the child support award; thus, as a matter of
  appellate  review we cannot determine whether the court did in fact abuse
  its discretion in awarding  maintenance.  We also reverse the court's
  decision to link the duration of the award to the age of the  litigants'
  children because this step implicitly allocated maintenance for child
  support.

 

       The parties were married in 1983.  At the time, mother was 27, had
  earned her B.A. and was  practicing as an accountant full time for
  approximately $16,000 per year.  Father was 34, had earned  a Masters, a
  degree in accounting and was a C.P.A.; he made approximately $32,000 per
  year.  By  mutual agreement, mother quit her job to raise a family.  The
  couple had three children, the youngest  of whom was born in 1989.  The
  parties were married for almost fifteen years before separating in  1997. 
  Following the separation, mother, then 42, found employment with the State
  of Vermont  Transportation Agency earning approximately $2000 per month. 
  Mother suffers from migraine  headaches, which have impeded her ability to
  work full time.  With medication, however, she  expects to be able to work
  40 hours per week within a year.  Father remained employed at National 
  Life Insurance where he has been employed since 1991.  His income is
  approximately $5800 per  month and is expected to continue to increase at
  five percent per year.

       The parties' property included a house in Barre, worth approximately
  $250,000 mortgage-free, as well as substantial assets in various checking,
  savings, retirement, and brokerage accounts  totaling approximately
  $250,000.  The parties agreed to and the court approved a property division 
  that awarded each party an equal share of these assets.  The house was
  ordered sold, and the proceeds  were divided equally.

       At trial, the principal issue in dispute was the amount and duration
  of maintenance payments  from father to mother.  As background, the trial
  court stated that spousal maintenance is intended to  rectify the
  inequalities of the parties' financial positions and noted the
  rehabilitative and  compensatory elements of such an award.  The court then
  determined that mother needed $1700 per  month for the first year following
  the divorce and $1500 per month until the year 2007 to support  herself and
  to "ensure that the children are maintained at [the marital] standard of
  living when living 

 

  with her."  Other than this statement, the court did not explain how it
  arrived at these figures.   According to the court, spousal maintenance is
  to last until 2007 because that is when the youngest  child will turn
  eighteen.

       No child support was awarded because the court determined that the
  amount recommended  by the child support guidelines would be de minimis. 
  For purposes of the child support worksheet,  the court determined that
  each party's monthly income should include the amount of spousal 
  maintenance awarded.  Thus, on the child support worksheet, the court
  calculated mother's monthly  income in the first year to be $3699 ($1999
  salary plus $1700 maintenance) and father's monthly  income to be $4107
  ($5807 salary minus $1700 maintenance).  Using these figures, the
  guidelines  recommend a support obligation of two dollars.

       On appeal, mother argues that both the amount and duration of the
  maintenance awards were  an abuse of discretion.  First, mother argues that
  the court's award treats her differently from  similarly situated women. 
  She contends that a maintenance award must equalize the incomes  between
  the parties to compensate her fully for her contribution to the marriage. 
  Second, mother  argues that the duration of the award is inadequate. 
  Mother sought a maintenance award that would  last fifteen years, equal to
  the length of the marriage.  Terminating maintenance when the youngest 
  child turns eighteen is arbitrary, she believes, because this termination
  date is based on the children's  needs rather than the mother's.

       These issues, however, are subsidiary to the fundamental flaw in the
  trial court's decision,  which is that the court did not award any child
  support.  The court's decision on both the amount of  maintenance and the
  duration of maintenance systematically conflated the inquiries for
  maintenance  and child support.  Rather than award mother maintenance and
  separate child support, the court 

 

  awarded only maintenance with the result that some of that maintenance must
  be used for child  support.  This was error.

                        I.	Amount of Maintenance

       In reviewing a maintenance award, the first thing we must do is
  determine the actual amount  awarded.  The court employed a process by
  which it set an amount of "maintenance" without  considering whether father
  would owe any child support under the guidelines with this amount of 
  maintenance.  Only then did the court determine that none was required by
  using this maintenance  award when calculating child support. (FN1)  This
  methodology confounds any attempt to determine  the component parts of the
  award for the purpose of appellate review.  More importantly, the court's 
  calculations allow it to reach an unsupportable position - that although
  mother needs maintenance  for her needs and rehabilitation, she has no need
  for child support to provide adequately for her  children.

       In not awarding any child support, the court must have presumed that
  at least some portion of  the maintenance award would be available to pay
  for the children's expenses.  In its findings, the  court accepted mother's
  report that her expenses, excluding costs for the children, were 
  approximately $3000 per month.  Given that her income was only $2000 per
  month, some of the  $1500 "maintenance" award must have been intended for
  her children.  But maintenance is intended  specifically to provide for the
  spouse's own needs.  See 15 V.S.A. § 752(a); Strauss v. Strauss, 160 

 

  Vt. 335, 338,