Title: Slade v. Slade

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Slade v. Slade  (2004-097); 178 Vt. 540; 872 A.2d 367

2005 VT 39

[23-Mar-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 39

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-097

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 2005

  Tammy Slade                       }     APPEALED FROM:
                                    }
                                    }
       v.                           }     Windsor Family Court
                                    }     
  Jeffrey Slade                     }
                                    }     DOCKET NO. 395-11-01 Wrdm

                                          Trial Judge: Amy Marie Davenport

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

       ¶ 1.     Wife appeals the family court's final divorce order, arguing
  that the court's division of marital property and its award of spousal
  maintenance are deficient, given the law and the circumstances of this
  case.  We affirm.

       ¶ 2.     The parties married in 1982 and separated in 2001.  They have
  two children, the first born in 1986 and the second in 1989.  Wife and
  husband both worked full-time until the first child was born, at which
  point wife became a full-time homemaker.  Wife returned to work part-time
  in 1993 and resumed full-time work in 1999.  At the time of the hearing
  before the magistrate in December 2002, wife was earning $25,000 per year
  working as an administrative assistant for a public school district. 
  During the marriage, husband's income as a town employee gradually rose
  from approximately $25,000 to $50,000 per year until 1999 when he began
  earning significantly more money selling heavy equipment for a private
  company.  In December 2002, the magistrate found that husband had gross
  income of approximately $150,000 per year.  The parties saved little money
  during their marriage, however, and thus, at the time of the divorce, the
  entire marital estate, including the marital home, was worth about
  $150,000.

        
       ¶ 3.     On December 20, 2002, after a contested hearing, the
  magistrate issued a temporary order requiring husband to pay wife $1,432 in
  monthly child support and $2,000 in monthly maintenance.  The magistrate
  also awarded wife $88 in monthly supplemental maintenance to "equalize the
  incomes in the households and thereby ensure that the children have the
  same standard of living with each parent."  The parties reached an
  agreement regarding parental rights and responsibilities, and they settled
  some issues related to the marital property.  They could not agree on how
  to split up the remainder of their property or on the duration of spousal
  maintenance.  On January 21, 2004, following hearings in November and
  December 2003, the family court issued a final divorce order.  The court
  awarded wife approximately $75,000 in assets, roughly one-half of the
  marital estate, and $2,000 in monthly maintenance for a period of twelve
  years.  The court ordered the parties to continue abiding by the
  magistrate's order on child support and supplemental maintenance.  Wife
  filed the present appeal. 

       ¶ 4.     On appeal, wife argues that the court abused its discretion
  by (1) failing to award her spousal maintenance for the twenty years she
  requested; (2) inequitably distributing the marital property; (3) requiring
  the parties to share uninsured medical expenses; (4) giving husband a small
  set-off against his child support arrears; and (5) allowing husband to
  claim a tax exemption for his son. 
   
       ¶ 5.     Before reaching the merits of wife's arguments, we must
  address the standard of review because the final order omits findings of
  fact.  The family court must issue fact findings if any party timely
  requests them, but it is not compelled to do so absent a request.  V.R.C.P.
  52(a); Kaplan v. Kaplan, 143 Vt. 102, 104,