Case Title: Mabee v. Mabee

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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. 92-160


 Jacqueline N. Mabee                          Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Bennington Family Court

 Douglass M. Mabee                            September Term, 1992


 Silvio T. Valente, J.

 Jeremy Dworkin, South Londonderry, for plaintiff-appellee

 Lucy T. Brown and Robert F. O'Neill of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for
   defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals from the trial court's modification of
 his child support obligation which was based on an increase in his income
 due to capital gains realized in 1990 from the sale of property that he
 received pursuant to a divorce decree.  Because the court awarded this
 property based on its then-present value, capital gain resulting from pre-
 property-division appreciation in the value of this property is not income
 but an asset.  Therefore, we reverse and hold that the term "capital gains,"
 listed in 15 V.S.A. { 653 (5)(A) as a component of gross income, does not
 include gain resulting from the pre-property-division appreciation in the
 property.
      On March 8, 1990, the parties were divorced, and the judgment included
 a division of the parties' property according to its then-present value.  At
 that time, defendant received various stocks and real property.  He sold
 some of these assets in August 1990 and paid income taxes on a net capital
 gain of $105,355 that was realized from the sales.  On January 3, 1991,
 defendant filed a motion to decrease his child support obligation.  The
 magistrate, however, found that defendant's capital gains were gross income
 under 15 V.S.A. { 653(A)(i) and were to be included in the child support
 calculations.  Consequently, the magistrate increased defendant's child
 support obligation.  The trial court affirmed the child support order.
      In a motion to modify child support, the movant must show a "real,
 substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances,"  15 V.S.A. { 660;
 Bucholt v. Bucholt, 152 Vt. 238, 239, 566 A.2d 409, 410 (1989), which
 includes situations where there would be at least a ten percent change in
 the amount of support required.  15 V.S.A. { 660(b).  Plaintiff claims that
 defendant's receipt of capital gains in August 1990 increased his gross
 income for that year and therefore caused a real, substantial and
 unanticipated change of circumstances in defendant's available income.
      Gross income is defined as including "income from any source including,
 but not limited to, . . . capital gains."  15 V.S.A. { 653(5)(A).  The term
 "capital gains," however, is not defined by the statute.  In interpreting a
 statute, this Court will give effect to the intention of the Legislature.
 Paquette v. Paquette, 146 Vt. 83, 86,