Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. 

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2016-066

NOVEMBER TERM, 2016

Donna Mannings } APPEALED FROM:

}

} Superior Court, Franklin Unit,

 v. } Family Division

}

}

Charles A. Mannings } DOCKET NO. 349-11-14 Frdm

Trial Judge: Thomas Z. Carlson

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

Husband appeals a final divorce order. On appeal, husband argues that the court erred in

setting the amount of maintenance, ordering him to pay wife spousal maintenance even after his 

retirement, and in requiring that the spousal maintenance be annually adjusted for inflation. We 

affirm.

The court found the following facts. The parties were married for twenty-six years and

raised two sons together. Husband works in heating and ventilating as a service technician and 

earns approximately $81,000 annually. Wife began working outside the home after the birth of 

her second child. She works in the food industry and the court found she can expect to earn 

approximately $25,000 annually. At the time of the final hearing, husband lived in the marital 

home and wife had moved to Florida where she was residing with her mother. During the 

marriage, the parties lived modestly. Although husband alleged that wife spent above their daily 

needs and incurred credit card debt, the court found that husband had not pointed to any specific 

details of wife spending unreasonable or excessive amounts and found no basis to conclude that 

wife dissipated marital assets. 

The parties stipulated to the division of marital property, agreeing that each party was 

entitled to approximately $84,300 of assets. This was accomplished by awarding wife the bulk of 

the parties’ retirement accounts and a vehicle and awarding husband the marital home, a small 

portion of the retirement accounts, and a truck.1 The parties could not reach an agreement on 

spousal maintenance, differing on the amount that should be paid and whether it should continue 

after husband’s retirement. The court held a contested hearing to resolve this issue. Both parties 

testified at the hearing. In a written order, the court found that wife was entitled to maintenance 

because she lacks sufficient income to provide for her reasonable needs and is unable to support 

herself through employment at the standard of living established during the marriage. See 15 

 

1

 On appeal, husband asserts that the stipulation is unfair because it provides him with very 

little retirement assets. Husband did not challenge the stipulation below. Further, in that the 

stipulation essentially divided the assets evenly husband fails to demonstrate that the stipulation 

does not represent a fair and equitable division of assets. 
2

V.S.A. § 752(a) (setting forth basis for awarding maintenance). The court ordered husband to pay 

$1250 a month until he reaches retirement age—sixty-six years and eight months—and $500 a 

month thereafter until either party’s death. The court set terms for increasing these amounts for 

inflation. Husband appeals.

On appeal, husband argues that the court erred in setting the amount of preretirement 

spousal maintenance, in awarding postretirement maintenance, and in including an automatic 

adjustment. “The family court has considerable discretion in determining the amount and duration 

of maintenance once grounds for the award are established under the statutory criteria, and a 

maintenance award will be set aside only if there is no reasonable basis to support it.” Gravel v. 

Gravel, 2009 VT 77, ¶ 23, 186 Vt. 250. 

We first consider the award of preretirement maintenance. Husband agrees that some 

maintenance award was warranted, but asserts that the trial court set the amount too high. In 

setting the amount and period of maintenance, the court is directed to consider several statutory 

factors, including the parties’ financial resources, the standard of living during the marriage, the 

duration of the marriage, the parties’ ages, and the ability of the receiving spouse to meet 

reasonable needs. 15 V.S.A. § 752(b). The court found that the annual incomes for husband and 

wife were $81,000 and $25,000, respectively. The court also found that without an award wife 

would be unable to provide for her reasonable needs, including shelter, food, transportation, and 

personal expenses. These findings provide a reasonable basis for the court’s decision. See Kohut 

v. Kohut, 164 Vt. 40, 43 (1995) (explaining that in determining amount of maintenance award 

court has discretion and will be reversed only where there is “no reasonable basis”).

Husband asserts that these findings are not supported because wife did not complete a

particular court form, which details expenses. The trial court recognized that there was no form, 

but found that nonetheless it had enough information from wife’s testimony about her expenses. 

We conclude that the court’s findings about wife’s expenses are supported by the evidence and not 

erroneous. 

Next, we consider husband’s argument that the court erred in awarding wife maintenance 

after husband retires. This Court has explained that permanent maintenance may be appropriate 

in a long-term marriage and “the most critical factors in determining the duration of a maintenance 

award are the role the recipient spouse played during the marriage and the income that spouse is 

likely to achieve in relation to the standard of living set in the marriage.” Delozier v. Delozier, 

161 Vt. 377, 383 (1994) (quotation omitted). Here, all of those factors support the court’s decision. 

As the trial court explained, a permanent maintenance award was supported in this case where it 

was a long-term marriage, wife’s contributions in the home and raising children allowed husband 

to develop his career, and there was a large difference in the parties’ earning capacities. 

Husband also argues that the court erred in building in automatic increases to the 

maintenance amounts.

2

 To account for increases in inflation and the cost of living, the court 

ordered that preretirement spousal maintenance be increased annually at an amount equal to ten 

percent of any increase in husband’s salary over $81,000 as reported on his prior year’s tax return. 

For postretirement income, the court ordered that the maintenance should be increased by twenty 

 

2

 Husband claims that the maintenance award requires the court to look into the future and 

asserts that it could become unfair if his income drops and wife’s income increases. The court 

must base the maintenance award on the evidence of the present and anticipated incomes of the 

parties. Should there be a future showing of “a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of 

circumstances,” husband could move to modify the award. 15 V.S.A. § 758.
3

percent of any cost of living increase in husband’s social security benefit. A maintenance award 

can include an automatic adjustment for increases in the cost of living, but it should both have “a 

workable formula” and be sensitive to the payor’s income. Molleur v. Molleur, 2012 VT 16, ¶ 24, 

191 Vt. 202. Here, the trial court’s order satisfies both of these requirements providing a workable 

formula that is tied to increases in husband’s actual income.

Husband asserts that the court erred in finding that wife had not dissipated marital assets. 

We conclude that the court’s finding that wife’s spending was reasonable and not a dissipation of 

marital assets is supported by wife’s testimony. At trial, wife testified that she used the credit 

cards to buy the parties and the children items like clothes and shoes so they could look nice and 

that she did not spend an excessive amount of money. Husband testified that wife would use the 

credit cards to buy gifts for people, but did not otherwise provide any information about how wife’s 

spending was unreasonable or excessive.

Finally, husband lists several other statements made by wife during her testimony that he 

alleges are false. We need not address this argument because the facts listed are not relevant to 

any finding that had an impact on the outcome of the case.

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________________

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

_______________________________________

John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

_______________________________________

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice