Title: McCormick v. McCormick

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

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. 91-371


 Levering McCormick                           Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Windham Family Court

 Ellen McCormick                              April Term, 1992



 Francis B. McCaffrey, J.

 Susan M. Murray of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, for plaintiff-
   appellant

 Mary C. Ashcroft, Rutland, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Appellant father appeals from a trial court decision
 awarding mother a total of $81,523.95 in past due child support and
 attorney's fees.  Father argues that the trial court improperly imputed
 income based on his expenses, erred in awarding future support, and failed
 to credit him for payments made for the benefit of the children.  We affirm
 the imputation but remand for recalculation of father's income excluding
 tuition payments made for his children and for reconsideration of the future
 support award.  We reject mother's cross-appeals for exemplary damages,
 reimbursement for depletion of assets, future tuition for the children, and
 interest on the principal amounts of retroactive support.
      The parties were divorced in 1980, and the father was ordered to pay
 $35 per week for each of their two children whenever mother had full-time
 physical custody.  The parties sold their house in Vermont, and mother
 moved to Connecticut.  In 1982, mother suffered a brain tumor, which was
 successfully treated, but caused a temporary decline in her income and an
 increase in her expenses.  Meanwhile, father's assets and income both
 increased during and after 1982 from inheritances and gifts.  His
 expenditures on behalf of the children also increased during these years.
 Father at all times maintained payment of the $70 per week ordered by the
 court.
      In 1985, mother moved to modify the child support provisions of the
 decree on grounds of changed circumstances.  The trial court dismissed the
 petition, finding that mother's increased expenses were caused by her
 voluntary move to Connecticut and that she was receiving more support than
 required by the order.  In McCormick v. McCormick, 150 Vt. 431, 436,