Title: Kim v. Kim

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Kim v. Kim (2001-008); 173 Vt. 525; 790 A.2d 381

[Filed 19-Dec-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-008

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2001

Alice Kim	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Caledonia Family Court
                                       }
                                       }
Stephen Kim	                       }	DOCKET NO. 94-7-88 Cadm

                                                Trial Judge: Mark J. Keller

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

       Defendant Stephen Kim appeals from the Caledonia Family Court's
  enforcement order  requiring him to make maintenance payments to plaintiff
  Alice Kim, defendant's former wife.  The  court held that under the
  couple's 1990 divorce decree, defendant was required to make payments at 
  the agreed upon pre-retirement amount, after defendant returned to work
  following a period of  retirement.  We affirm.

       The parties were married for thirty-two years before their divorce in
  1990.  Defendant is an  anesthesiologist who worked primarily at
  Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, in St. Johnsbury,  Vermont.  The
  divorce decree was based on a stipulation wherein defendant agreed to
  provide  plaintiff with $50,000 in maintenance per year "until the later of
  his attainment of the age of 65 or his  retirement."  After that,
  maintenance would be reduced to $5,000 per year.  At the time of the
  divorce  defendant was 60.

       Defendant worked until September 1999, when he announced his
  retirement at the age of 69,  and he began to pay plaintiff the reduced
  amount of maintenance.  In February 2000, defendant  returned to work as an
  anesthesiologist at Northeastern Regional Vermont Hospital for a period of 
  three months.  During that time he earned $47,600.  Plaintiff filed a
  motion to enforce the original  divorce agreement requesting that she
  receive the higher maintenance amount because, she claimed,  defendant was
  no longer retired and had returned to the active practice of medicine.

       In a hearing held in October 2000, the court determined that because
  defendant had returned to  work "in his chosen profession," he was
  responsible for paying the higher alimony amount.   Therefore, the court
  ordered that defendant pay a pro-rated amount of the $50,000 for the three 
  months that he was working as an anesthesiologist.  Defendant appeals.

 

       On appeal, defendant argues that the enforcement order was, in fact, a
  modification of the  original divorce order.  As such, defendant contends
  that plaintiff has not met her burden to  demonstrate that modifying the
  original divorce stipulation was warranted by the circumstances. 
  Furthermore, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in
  modifying the order because  the change imposed a new obligation on
  defendant that was not within the contemplation of parties  at the time of
  the divorce.

       Parties to a divorce action are permitted to negotiate the terms of
  their divorce for themselves.  Morissette v. Morissette, 143 Vt. 52, 59,