Title: Stickney v. Stickney

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Sticknet v. Stickney (99-031); 170 Vt. 547; 742 A.2d 1228

[Filed 08-Oct-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-031

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1999

Gail L. Stickney	               }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	Rutland Family Court
	                               }	
Peter C. Stickney                      }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. 356-8-90Rddm	

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Gail Stickney appeals a reduction of the maintenance award
  she received in 1991  following her divorce from defendant Peter Stickney. 
  She argues that the trial court erred in  finding that there existed a
  change in circumstances, pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 758, to justify such  a
  reduction.  She further argues that even if a change in circumstances
  exists, the court abused its  discretion by modifying her permanent spousal
  maintenance award from $1,800 per week to $0.  We affirm the trial court's
  finding that a change of circumstances has occurred, but reverse and 
  remand its finding that the maintenance award should be reduced from $1,800
  to $0.
	
       Plaintiff and defendant were married on August 26, 1966.  The marriage
  produced two children,  both of whom have attained the age of majority.  At
  the beginning of the marriage, plaintiff  worked as a medical secretary and
  provided most of the financial support for the parties while  defendant
  attended medical school.
	
       Following the birth of their first child in 1970, plaintiff stopped
  working outside the home.   After defendant's graduation from medical
  school that same year, defendant started a practice  and worked long hours
  establishing it.  During this time, plaintiff was the primary caregiver to 
  the children, managed the couple's finances and organized their social
  life.  In 1989, the couple  began to experience financial difficulties,
  brought on in part by their lavish spending and  defendant's back problems
  which rendered him unable to work for a period of time.  In August  1990
  plaintiff filed for divorce.
	
       After the parties had separated, plaintiff received financial and
  emotional support from Mark  Stickney, defendant's brother.  A divorce was
  granted on December 20, 1991.  In its decree, the  family court awarded
  plaintiff $1,800 in permanent maintenance, based in part on the fact that 
  plaintiff had been out of the work force for twenty years and had no
  experience or vocational  skills to enable her to support herself in a
  manner approximating the standard of living  established during the
  marriage.
	
       In June 1992, the parties entered into a stipulation agreement
  temporarily reducing defendant's  maintenance obligation to $1,200 per
  week.  This temporary reduction took into account the fact  that defendant
  had filed for bankruptcy and that he had agreed to assume the parties'
  significant  debt owed to the I.R.S.  Defendant's maintenance obligation
  would return to $1,800 per week by  June 1998 at the latest, according to a
  schedule based on his retiring of the party's tax  indebtedness.

 

       In January 1998, defendant filed a motion to modify spousal
  maintenance, alleging that his  income had failed to meet projected
  increases and his practice's operating expenses substantially  exceeded the
  court's projections anticipated in the final divorce order.  He further
  offered as  support for a change in circumstances the fact that plaintiff
  had made no effort to complete her  education and obtain employment as
  contemplated by the prior order, and that plaintiff's standard  of living
  had substantially improved because of the financial support she received
  from Mark  Stickney.

       Following a hearing on defendant's motion in July 1998, the court
  found defendant had met his  burden and demonstrated a change in
  circumstances which justified a downward modification of  maintenance for
  three reasons.  First, notwithstanding the fact that defendant continued to
  work  at a pace equal to or exceeding his efforts at the time of the final
  hearing, his net income had  decreased as compared to and anticipated by
  the court's 1991 order.  Second, plaintiff had failed  to make a good-faith
  effort to complete her education and obtain gainful employment.  Third, 
  plaintiff's financial circumstances had improved because of Mark Stickney's
  financial assistance.  Based on these and other findings, the court reduced
  plaintiff's permanent maintenance award to  $0.  The court did, however,
  require that defendant continue to pay off the $54,000 in  maintenance
  arrears he still owed plaintiff at a rate of $400 per week.  Plaintiff
  appeals.
	
       We note at the outset that when reviewing the factual findings of a
  trial court, we view them in  the light most favorable to the prevailing
  party below, disregarding the effect of any modifying  evidence, and we
  will not set aside the findings unless they are clearly erroneous.  See
  Brown v.  Whitcomb, 150 Vt. 106, 109,