Title: Lussier v. Lussier

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Lussier v. Lussier (2001-416); 174 Vt. 454; 807 A.2d 374

[Filed 21-June-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-416

                               JUNE TERM, 2002


  Catherine Lussier	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Chittenden Family Court
                                       }
  Francis Lussier	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 502-6-00 Cndm

                                                Trial Judge: Linda Levitt

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Catherine Lussier appeals from an order of the Chittenden
  Family Court declaring void plaintiff's "entitlement order" drawn on a
  trust account created by her former husband, Francis Lussier, demanding
  that the corpus of the trust be transferred to her; enjoining plaintiff
  from attempting to obtain control of defendant's assets in the trust
  account; and ordering plaintiff to pay defendant's legal fees.  Plaintiff
  argues that the family court was without jurisdiction to hear this matter,
  that she was entitled to exercise control over defendant's account, and
  that because the court erred in its order below, the payment of attorneys'
  fees ought to be reversed.  We affirm.

       The parties were divorced pursuant to a final order of the Chittenden
  Family Court on December 15, 2000.  The final order provided, in part, that
  defendant pay plaintiff maintenance in the amount of $75,000 per quarter
  until 2012.  The maintenance obligation would not terminate in the event of
  defendant's death, but would terminate in the event of plaintiff's death. 
  To secure the maintenance, the original divorce order required defendant to
  establish a trust account of sufficient value, in which plaintiff would
  hold a perfected lien.  Automatic distributions were to be made to
  plaintiff according to the schedule set by the order.

       To fulfill the Family Court's order, the parties executed several
  documents.  First, defendant established the Lussier Trust, a revocable
  trust containing assets in an account held by Salomon Smith Barney
  sufficient to pay defendant's obligations under the final order.  To
  perfect plaintiff's lien on the account, a Security Agreement signed by
  both parties gave plaintiff a first and exclusive security interest in the
  trust account.  The trust also executed an Account Control Agreement that
  set out in greater detail the assets in the account, Salomon Smith Barney's
  responsibility to pay on demand, and the plaintiff's ability, as the
  secured party, to give Salomon Smith Barney entitlement orders to the
  account.
   
       On July 13, 2001, relying on a provision in the Account Control
  Agreement, plaintiff issued an entitlement order to Salomon Smith Barney
  ordering it to transfer all of the assets in the trust 

 

  account, approximately $3.5 million, to an account in her name.  Defendant
  was not in default under the terms of the final order.  After defendant
  filed several motions to prevent this transaction, the Family Court issued
  a temporary order declaring the entitlement order null and void, and
  ordering plaintiff not to take any actions to obtain possession or title to
  the assets in the account.  The family court ruled that defendant had not
  defaulted on his maintenance obligation, and that plaintiff was not
  entitled to accelerate the maintenance award to a lump sum payment rather
  than the quarterly awards ordered by the court.  On August 7, 2001, the
  court made that order final following a hearing.  Plaintiff appeals.

       Plaintiff argues that the Account Control Agreement was an independent
  contract entered into after the divorce was final and therefore outside the
  jurisdiction of the family court.  Plaintiff also claims that the plain
  language of the Account Control Agreement gives her the exclusive right to
  control the account by issuing entitlement orders to Salomon Smith Barney. 
  The entitlement order that she issued directing that the account be turned
  over to an account in her name, she contends, was part of that Agreement. 
  She claims the family court erred in construing the Account Control
  Agreement as only a security agreement that is part of the final divorce
  order.  Finally, she argues that the court erred in ordering her to pay
  attorneys' fees.

       When parties to a divorce stipulate to the terms of the dissolution of
  their marriage, we will  honor the agreement under the ordinary rules of
  contract.  Duke v. Duke, 140 Vt. 543, 546,