Court Opinion

ID: 9957974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 21:14:49.504216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:35.299620
License: Public Domain

VERMONT SUPREME COURT                                                      Case No.       23-AP-280
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

                                           ENTRY ORDER

                                         APRIL TERM, 2024

Gaetan Letourneau* v. Cynthia Letourneau             }    APPEALED FROM:
                                                     }    Superior Court, Orleans Unit,
                                                     }    Family Division
                                                     }    CASE NO. 22-DM-00482
                                                          Trial Judge: A. Gregory Rainville

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

       Husband appeals from the trial court’s final divorce order. He argues that the court erred
in awarding wife spousal maintenance. We affirm.

        Husband filed for divorce. Wife initially did not participate because she was opposed to
getting divorced. At the divorce hearing, husband testified to the parties’ financial and other
circumstances. The court issued an order dividing the parties’ assets and awarding wife $500 per
month in spousal maintenance. Husband was awarded his retirement account, which he testified
was approximately equal in value to the marital home. Wife was awarded the marital home.

        Husband filed a motion to alter and amend, seeking to strike the maintenance award and
correct an error in the address of the marital home; he also requested findings and conclusions
under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). The court scheduled a hearing on the motion and
directed both parties to attend, issuing wife a judicial summons. Following a hearing, the court
corrected the error as to the marital home, denied husband’s request to strike the maintenance
award, and set forth findings and conclusion in support of its decisions on property division and
spousal maintenance.

        The court found as follows. The parties married in June 1979. They are both in their
mid-60s. Husband is in good health while wife is on disability for spinal impairment. Wife has
limited work experience and/or ability to work. The parties’ adult children continue to live in the
marital home.

       Husband filed financial documents, including a financial affidavit, while wife filed none.
The court summarized the parties’ testimony in its decision. Husband stated that he works full-
time and earns approximately $60,000 per year. He has a retirement account valued at
approximately $140,000. Husband identified few other assets even though he was a skilled
construction worker with many years of experience. Husband cited the town’s valuation of the
marital home at $150,000 in its grand list. He indicated that wife had limited income; she
worked part-time at a fast-food restaurant and had a partial disability.

        Wife testified that she raised the parties’ children and did not work outside the home until
four years before the divorce petition was filed. She had spinal surgery in 1997 and has been
receiving partial Social Security disability payments since 2001. She received about $2000 per
month in disability payments. She worked fewer than twenty-five hours per week, earning a few
thousand dollars per year. Wife inherited approximately $30,000 several years before the final
divorce hearing but had spent it down to about $11,000. Wife had no other financial assets,
retirement accounts, or resources, except for her car. She did not have an opinion on the value of
the marital home. Wife testified that husband took care of most of the living expenses during the
marriage. The court found that property taxes, insurance, and incidental repairs totaled
approximately $3000 or more per year and wife’s car payments were over $400 per month (with
the balance owed unknown), in addition to maintenance and fuel expenses.

        Based on this evidence, the court concluded as follows. The parties had a long-term
marriage of forty-three years. Husband has always been the primary wage earner as a skilled
construction worker. He had the ability to continue to earn a substantial future income and
presently earned about $5700 per month based on his financial affidavit. He also had the
retirement account referenced above, which he sought to keep. He believed it was of comparable
value to the marital home.

        Wife only recently began working outside the home. She is physically impaired and can
only work part-time earning a few thousand dollars per year. She had no appreciable earnings on
which to base Social Security payments when she reaches the age of retirement. Wife had no
real job skills, no retirement income potential, and her only financial asset was a savings account
with about $11,000, which she was rapidly drawing down to meet her basic expenses.

       The court found a substantial disparity in the parties’ financial resources and their
potential to earn future income, with husband in a far superior position. It concluded that wife
needed spousal support to meet her basic needs and that husband could easily afford to pay her
$500 per month, which was a modest sum considering the parties’ respective financial positions.
Husband appealed.

        Husband first argues that court’s order, prior to the court’s additional hearing and
findings, was not supported by the evidence. He further contends that, once the court did make
findings, they were insufficient to support the maintenance award. He characterizes the court’s
findings as “patently insufficient” but does not elaborate on this argument. Husband maintains
that wife has sufficient income to meet her needs.

       Notwithstanding the unusual procedural history of this case, there is only one final order
on appeal. The court’s division of marital property and its award of spousal maintenance did not
change. In response to husband’s motion, it took additional evidence from wife and issued
findings and conclusions as husband requested.
       We review this final decision, and its accompanying findings and conclusions, to
determine if the court abused its discretion in making its award. Chaker v. Chaker, 155 Vt. 20,
25 (1990). The court may award maintenance, either rehabilitative or permanent, to a spouse
when it finds that the spouse lacks sufficient income and/or property to “provide for his or her
reasonable needs” and the spouse is unable to support himself or herself “through appropriate

                                                     2
employment at the standard of living established during the marriage.” 15 V.S.A. § 752(a);
Chaker, 155 Vt. at 25. The maintenance must be in the amount and for the duration the court
deems just, based on the consideration of seven nonexclusive factors. See 15 V.S.A. § 752(b).
Once the trial court finds grounds for awarding maintenance, it has broad discretion in
determining the duration and amount. Chaker, 155 Vt. at 25. A maintenance award will be set
aside only if there is no reasonable basis to support it. Id.
        Husband fails to show that the court’s decision lacks a reasonable basis here. He
suggests that the court speculated in finding wife’s home-related expenses to be $6000 per year.
But the court found these expenses to be $3000, not $6000. Husband also calculates a monthly
income for wife that is not supported by the evidence or the court’s findings. Wife testified that
she earned “a little over a thousand dollars” the prior year from her part-time work and that she
continued to work the same amount of hours. The court did not find, and the evidence does not
show, that wife was earning $1500 per month for part-time work. As the court explained, the
disparity between the parties’ income and ability to generate future income is significant here.
The court’s decision reflects that it considered the statutory standard satisfied and it was not
required to recite the exact language of the statute in reaching its conclusion. It is evident from
the court’s findings that wife lacks sufficient income and/or property “to provide for . . . her
reasonable needs at the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.” Watson v. Watson,
2003 VT 80, ¶ 4, 175 Vt. 622 (mem.) (recognizing that “[a]s long as the family court’s order
reflects that it considered the relevant factors under § 752(b), the court is not required to issue
specific findings on each factor, and the party challenging the award on appeal must show there
is no reasonable basis for it” (quotation omitted)). The record plainly supports the court’s
determination that wife was entitled to spousal maintenance of $500 per month.
       Affirmed.

                                               BY THE COURT:

                                               Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice

                                               William D. Cohen, Associate Justice

                                               Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

                                                    3