Title: Kellner v. Kellner

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Kellner v. Kellner (2003-190); 176 Vt. 571; 844 A.2d 743

2004 VT 1

[Filed 05-Jan-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                  2004 VT 1

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-190

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2003

  Jeanne R. Kellner	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Chittenden Family Court
                                       }	
  Charles Kellner	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. F 96-2-96 CnDm

                                                Trial Judge: Linda Levitt

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

       ¶  1.  Plaintiff appeals the denial of her motion to enforce the terms
  of a stipulated Amended Final Order for property settlement and child
  support.  The order sets a schedule for property settlement and child
  support payments and includes an avoidable late fee provision triggered by
  defendant's failure to pay within the timetables and grace periods
  established by the order.  The family court refused to enforce the late fee
  provisions contained in its own order.  We reverse without reviewing the
  grounds of the family court's decision because the doctrine of res judicata
  precludes defendant from collaterally attacking the validity of the order. 
  We reverse and remand for enforcement of the order.

       ¶  2.  The parties were divorced by the family court's Final Order
  and Decree of Divorce in December 1996.  The relevant provisions of that
  order require defendant to pay child support and spousal maintenance
  beginning in December 1996, and a total of $143,600 in property settlement
  over a six year period that commenced December 1, 1998.  Interest on
  arrearages ran at six percent annually for the first three years, and seven
  percent thereafter.

       ¶  3.   In April 1998, plaintiff filed the first of two Motions for
  Contempt and Judgment against defendant because of his repeated failure to
  timely pay spousal maintenance and child support.  Defendant had
  established a pattern of making payments more than a month after they were
  due, and plaintiff claimed that defendant's tardiness caused her financial
  difficulties.  The record does not indicate how the first motion was
  resolved, but by March 1999 plaintiff was again forced to move for contempt
  and judgment, this time because of nonpayment.  Plaintiff's motion detailed
  defendant's failure to make any of the property settlement payments. 
  Defendant had also stopped making child support and spousal maintenance
  payments.
   
       ¶  4.  While the second contempt  motion was pending, the parties
  reached a new agreement and stipulated to an amended order.  The Chittenden
  Family Court incorporated this stipulation into its Amended Final Order on
  June 6, 1999.  The amended order established a schedule for the payment of
  the property settlement balance - all of which was still owing and part of
  which was in arrears at the time - plus interest.  In an attempt to secure
  compliance with this timetable, and avoid future contempt issues with
  regard to maintenance and child support, the amended order provided for the
  assessment of late fees.  For all late payments, defendant would be charged
  a fee calculated at eight percent of the monthly sum owed - both principal
  and interest.  The fees are capped at $11,100 over the life of the
  agreement.  Defendant could avoid the late fees by on-time payment. If
  defendant successfully made all the required payments within thirty days of
  their due dates, the amended order provided that plaintiff would forgive
  the last four property settlement payments for a possible total of $11,100.

       ¶  5.  Defendant subsequently failed to make several of the
  scheduled payments.  Plaintiff moved to enforce the terms of the Amended
  Final Order, seeking the missing payments, late fees, and attorney's fees. 
  Defendant responded with a motion to strike the late fee provision arguing
  that it was usurious.  In a subsequent ruling, the same judge who had
  signed the Amended Final Order that plaintiff is currently trying to
  enforce denied plaintiff's motion.  The judge ruled that the late fee
  provision was inapplicable to child support payments because there is
  already a separate statutory scheme for enforcing child support orders. 
  With respect to the property settlement, the judge ruled that the state's
  lending laws, 9 V.S.A. §§ 41a, 42, 44, barred the late fees that the court
  termed as "unreasonable, if not unconscionable."  This appeal followed.

       ¶  6.  We conclude that the doctrine of res judicata precluded the
  family court from refusing to enforce the Amended Final Order.  In so
  doing, we reaffirm the principles recently articulated in Johnston v.
  Wilkins, 2003 VT 56,