Opinion ID: 2361145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Property Division and Maintenance

Text: Next, Ellen challenges the court's division of the marital property and its failure to award her maintenance. The court concluded that the marital estate contained sufficient value to provide financial independence for each of the parties, and awarded Ellen slightly more than $1.5 million, mostly in cash. The court found that maintenance was unnecessary, because Ellen's income and [the] property award [would] be sufficient for her reasonable needs [and enable her] to support herself at the standard of living established during the marriage. As the court's property and maintenance decisions are linked, Ellen's claims with respect to these issues must be considered together. See DeGrace v. DeGrace, 147 Vt. 466, 470, 520 A.2d 987, 990 (1986) (property division and maintenance award are closely related under Vermont's statutory scheme). Division of marital property is governed by 15 V.S.A. § 751, which grants the court authority to equitably divide and assign the property and sets out a number of factors that the court may consider in making its decision. See Jakab v. Jakab, 163 Vt. 575, 585, 664 A.2d 261, 267 (1995). As we have often noted, property division is not an exact science, and the trial court has broad discretion in considering the statutory factors and fashioning an appropriate order. See, e.g., Klein v. Klein, 150 Vt. 466, 469, 555 A.2d 382, 384 (1988). The court must, however, provide a clear statement as to what was decided and why. Jakab, 163 Vt. at 585, 664 A.2d at 267. In her brief, Ellen challenges the court's conclusions with respect to a number of the statutory factors. She has not, however, succeeded in demonstrating an abuse of discretion by the court. See id. at 585, 664 A.2d at 267 (court's decision will be upheld unless its discretion was abused, withheld, or exercised on clearly untenable grounds). For the most part, the arguments are nothing more than a recital of evidence, such as that of Ellen's claimed contributions to Tom's business activities, that the court rejected as not credible. In any event, Ellen does not link these arguments to a request for a larger share of the marital estate. Instead, she argues that this Court should add back the assets that she claims were erroneously excluded or undervalued by the trial court, and then divide this revalued marital estate using the same ratio that the trial court employed. As we have already discussed, however, the court's factual findings regarding the value of the marital estate were not clearly erroneous, and we will not disturb them. Moreover, the court did not award Ellen a share of the marital estate; it calculated a cash award that it considered appropriate given the relevant statutory factors. The court's decision, which is well-explained and supported by the findings, is not an abuse of discretion. Ellen further claims that the court should have awarded her maintenance pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 752. Although a court may award significant amounts of both property and maintenance, see Johnson v. Johnson, 155 Vt. 36, 43, 580 A.2d 503, 507 (1990), a court also has discretion to make an award of property in lieu of maintenance. Naumann v. Kurz, 152 Vt. 355, 358, 566 A.2d 1342, 1344 (1989); see 15 V.S.A. § 752(a)(1) (court may order maintenance if it finds that spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient income, property, or both, including property apportioned by court, to provide for reasonable needs). In this case, given the substantial size of the marital estate, the court chose to divide the marital property to allow each party financial independence. Ellen does not necessarily challenge this approach, but considers her property settlement too small to be an adequate substitute for maintenance payments in this case. The focus of Ellen's claim is that the court did not give adequate consideration to the standard of living established during the marriage. See 15 V.S.A. § 752(a)(1) & (2) (court may order maintenance if it finds that spouse seeking maintenance cannot provide for reasonable needs and cannot support herself at standard of living established during marriage). She takes issue with the court's characterization of the parties' lifestyle during the marriage as inappropriate and argues that the court had no authority to consider whether she and Tom were living beyond their means. According to Ellen, the court should have awarded her sufficient maintenance and/or income-producing property to allow her to spend as she did during the marriage, even if that spending level was unreasonable given the parties' income and assets. Although the court must consider the standard of living established during the marriage, we cannot conclude that the Legislature intended courts to ignore economic reality in these situations. A couple may, if they are able to obtain credit and choose to do so, live an extravagant lifestyle that they cannot afford. But such a financial arrangement cannot last forever, and it can rarely last beyond a divorce, when property and income must be split to support two households. See Kohut v. Kohut, 164 Vt. 40, 43, 663 A.2d 942, 944 (1995) (where parties were constantly borrowing money and receiving assistance from husband's parents during marriage, it was unlikely that their lifestyle was sustainable after divorce). Indeed, Ellen's financial demands prove this point well: her request for over $2.3 million in cash would have more than wiped out the investment account, forcing Tom to liquidate other assets to pay her and pay the taxes, and leaving very little, if any, income-producing property to fund her request for $48,000 per year combined maintenance and child support. The court correctly concluded that these demands were unreasonable. In light of the property settlement, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award maintenance to Ellen. Ellen received sufficient cash to pay her attorney's fees, purchase a home worth approximately $200,000, and still invest $1,000,000. The income stream from that investment, combined with $18,000 per year in child support to provide for the child's needs, should allow Ellen a very comfortable standard of living. We see no grounds that justify disturbing the court's decision. See Johnson, 155 Vt. at 40, 580 A.2d at 506 (party appealing maintenance decision must show that there is no reasonable basis to support it).