Title: Chaker v. Chaker

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-357


Ann L. Chaker                                Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal From
     v.                                      Chittenden Superior Court

Mouhanad Chaker                              May Term, 1989


Alden T. Bryan, J.

Jarvis and Kaplan, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

Paul R. Morwood, Burlington, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   This divorce action is here for the second time.  Follow-
ing our reversal of the 1985 order, the matter was heard on the merits
during July and August of 1987, resulting in extensive findings and an order
and decree resolving the property and maintenance issues presented by the
parties.  Defendant, Mouhanad Chaker, appeals, alleging two errors in the
award of maintenance:  (a) the court abused its discretion in including a
maintenance escalation clause based solely on defendant's income; and (b)
the court abused its discretion in awarding permanent maintenance.  Defend-
ant also argues that the court committed error in calculating the arrearages
owed by defendant and in ordering defendant to pay plaintiff's attorneys'
fees.  We affirm the maintenance and attorney fees award but vacate and
remand the arrearage and related property award.
     The following is a summary of the relevant facts, based on extensive
findings made by the trial court.  Neither party has challenged these
findings.
     Plaintiff Ann Chaker, who is now fifty-five years of age, met defend-
ant, now age thirty-nine, when he was attending an English language program
at the University of Oklahoma as a foreign student from Syria.  At the time
the parties met, plaintiff owned and ran a rooming house for university
students.  They were married in July of 1975 (her fifth marriage, his first)
and lived in Oklahoma until they moved to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1977
so that defendant could pursue a graduate degree.  In 1979, they came to
Burlington, Vermont where defendant started a job with IBM.  They separated
in 1984 and had no children.
     The parties have never had great income or owned extensive property
although defendant made about $45,000 per year when the divorce hearing was
held in 1987.  The trial court concluded that each party had contributed
"approximately equally to the marital estate since the date of the
marriage."  Plaintiff's main contribution appears to be the proceeds from
the sale of her Oklahoma rooming house.  Defendant's main contribution
appears to be his income since he became employed in 1979.
     At the time of the marriage, the main asset of the parties was a home
in Burlington, valued at $88,000, with an equity of about $45,000.  Defend-
ant was entitled to a pension at IBM but it had not yet vested and there was
no evidence of its value.  Similarly, defendant had available a life insur-
ance policy of uncertain value.  The only other assets of the parties were
personal property, including two automobiles.
     Although she is a college graduate, plaintiff has not worked outside
the home, but she helped defendant during his education, particularly with
typing.  At the time of the separation, plaintiff had an independent income
of $670 per month, the bulk of which is a social security disability
payment.  Despite her receipt of disability benefits, plaintiff is capable
of working and earning an income of approximately $1200 per month.  Her
monthly living expenses are about $1500 per month, including mortgage
payments on the Burlington home.
     Defendant's gross income from IBM of $45,000 per year is expected to
increase in the future.  His monthly living expenses at the time of the
divorce hearing were about $1600 per month.
     Plaintiff commenced this divorce action in 1984.  A temporary hearing
was held in September of 1984, resulting in an order giving plaintiff
possession of the house and requiring defendant to pay the mortgage, taxes
and insurance payments for the house.  The order also required defendant to
pay temporary maintenance of $625 per month, to cover plaintiff on his IBM
health insurance policy and to maintain plaintiff as beneficiary on his IBM
life insurance policy.
     The final hearing was held in 1985 and resulted in a final order in May
of that year.  The order awarded the house to plaintiff and required
defendant to pay maintenance at the rate of $1000 per month.  It required
defendant to maintain health insurance coverage for plaintiff and to
maintain plaintiff as the beneficiary of the life insurance policy.  It
concluded that defendant had failed to pay $4883.31 under the temporary
order and assessed this as an arrearage.  It required defendant to pay
plaintiff's attorney fees of about $5000.
     Defendant appealed the final order, arguing that the court committed
reversible error in allowing his counsel to withdraw during the merits
hearing.  This Court agreed and reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Chaker v. Chaker, 147 Vt. 548,