Title: Potter v. Potter

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Potter v. Potter (98-442); 170 Vt. 540; 742 A.2d 740

[Filed 06-Oct-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-442

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1999

Heidi Potter	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	Windsor Family Court
	                               }	
Jeffrey E. Potter	               }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. 415-9-95 Wrdmd

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

       This case presents a single question on appeal: whether husband's
  continuing mortgage  payment, as required by the final order of divorce,
  should be classified as maintenance or as  property settlement for purposes
  of modification.  The family court determined that a real and 
  unanticipated change of circumstances warranted modification of husband's
  spousal support, but  concluded that the mortgage obligation was a property
  settlement and therefore not subject to  modification.  Husband appeals. 
  We agree with this analysis and affirm.

       Heidi and Jeffrey Potter had been married for approximately ten and a
  half years at the  time of their divorce in 1997.  Jeffrey Potter holds a
  civil engineering degree and had an average  annual salary of $37,000 at
  the time of the divorce hearing in December, 1996.  Heidi Potter is 
  employed as a secretary at an elementary school with an annual salary of
  $11,400 at the time of  the divorce hearing.  The Potters have two minor
  sons. 

       The Potters own a home valued at $121,000, and the lower court found
  the marital equity  was $56,000.  The court awarded the house to Heidi
  Potter during the minority of the couple's  sons.  The court ordered that
  the parties pay the mortgage in alternating months, making monthly 
  payments of $523.  The house was not to be sold until 2006, when the
  younger son reached the  age of eighteen.  The court awarded one-half of
  the equity in the marital residence to Jeffrey and  specified a rate of
  interest for the mortgage payments made by him.  

       After making these determinations, the court turned to Heidi's request
  for maintenance in  the amount of $500 per month.  The court recognized
  that Heidi could not maintain the lifestyle  the parties had enjoyed during
  their marriage based on her income alone but concluded "[she]  has a duty
  to enhance her income."  The court awarded only $250 per month maintenance.

       In January 1998, Jeffrey was laid off by his employer.  He moved to
  amend the order of  maintenance and to modify child support.  The court
  found that he had undergone a real,  substantial and unanticipated change
  of circumstances and ordered the amount of spousal support  to be reduced. 
  The court denied Jeffrey's motion to modify his obligation to pay half of
  the  mortgage on the marital residence because it found that the obligation
  was not maintenance and  therefore was not subject to modification.  

       The family court's decision is supported by our decision in Boisselle
  v. Boisselle, 162 Vt.  240,