Court Opinion

ID: 9761947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:01:20.604225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:27.952762
License: Public Domain

Shangraw, C.J.
dissenting. Before expressing my views, and to amplify somewhat on the facts as related in the majority opinion, I take occasion to quote the following findings made by the court:
“3. That whereas petitioner was capable of taking care of herself to a great extent in 1966, she now cannot walk and has lost the use of her hands and is totally dependent on others.
4. That whereas in 1966 petitioner was not taking drugs, her worsening condition has necessitated large expenditures for drugs.
5. That petitioner’s worsening medical condition has required substantial expenditures for various medical supplies, including a wheelchair, hydraulic lift and various pads and devices to take care of her bodily needs since she is immobile.
6. That her circumstances have further changed since 1966 in that until the present time her mother has taken care of her, but now petitioner’s mother is over 70 years old and is quite ill herself.
7. That petitioner’s mother is no longer capable of taking care of her, which circumstances will require the hiring of a full time housekeeper. Petitioner presently pays a housekeeper $10 for one day’s work.
8. That the house in which petitioner lives is in a deteriorating condition and recent repairs have been made on the roof and cellar requiring further expenditures.
9. That although the petitioner could not remember her specific expenses of five years ago, her testimony is sufficient to establish that her living expenses have increased.
10. That the petitioner’s present expenses are as follows:
Food $140 per month
Taxes $ 40 per month
Hospital & life insurance $ 21 per month
*231Drugs $ 40 per month
Nurse $ 12 per month
Housekeeper $ 40 per month
Electricity $ 28 per month
Fuel (winter) $ 56 per month
13. The petitionee’s net earnings in 1966, as an employee of Fairbanks Morse Weighing System Division were approximately $432.00 per month and his net earnings from service as a member of the Vermont National Guard were approximately $83.00 per month, making a total net monthly income in 1966, of approximately $515.00 per month.
14. The petitionee’s present net monthly income is approximately $510.57 as an employee of Howe Richardson Scale. Company, and the petitionee is no longer an active member of the Vermont National Guard and receives no income therefrom.”
And, by way of a conclusion, the court continued by stating, “. . . the Court finds change of circumstances as far as the petitioner is concerned but is finable to find that the petitionee’s circumstances have likewise changed and that the petitionee is at this point able to increase the alimony beyond that by Court Order of September 1966.”
The petitionee has remarried. His new wife, a registered nurse, nets $280.00 monthly for her services. She also receives $200.00 per month for the support of two children of a previous marriage. No findings were made concerning this income. The foregoing, added to petitionee’s present earnings of $510.57 per month, makes available $990.57 monthly.
In addition to the monthly alimony to the petitioner of $160.00, the petitionee was ordered to pay $70.00 per month for the support of each of his two children. One child, a son, became of age and the petitionee has been relieved of the monthly payment of $70.00 for his support. No finding was made to this effect.
Petitioner owns a two-apartment house in Lyndonville, Vermont. She occupies one apartment. Her apparent source of income is limited to the monthly alimony of $160.00 plus $43.00 per month which she receives as rent from the remaining *232apartment. In paragraph three of the findings the court found that her living expenses amount to sums aggregating $377.00.
Laying aside the funds received by petitionee’s present wife by way of alimony and support of her two minor children, the petitionee’s earnings are only $4.43 less than at the time the initial support order was made in September, 1966. Having been relieved of the monthly payment of $70.00 to his son, petitionee’s financial position has improved. A determination by the trial court that it is unable to find that petitionee’s circumstances have changed is inconsistent with the record.
A stipulation was signed by the parties and filed with the court. It provided that the petitionee pay to the petitioner $160.00 per month as alimony “until further order of the court”.
The decree as it applies to alimony of $160.00 monthly to the petitioner, as well as the monthly payments for the support of each of the minor children followed the provisions of the stipulation and also contains the provision “until further order of the court”.
It is self-evident that the court below left the door open, under proper circumstances, for a modification of the order as it related to alimony as well as child support. This it was authorized to do.
This is not a case where a property settlement was made in lieu of alimony. The court correctly determined that petitioner’s circumstances had changed since the original decree awarding alimony was made.
I am mindful that the court has discretion to modify an alimony decree as is accorded the court in original actions concerning alimony and support. Davis v. Davis, 121 Vt. 242, 244, 154 A.2d 463 (1959); Shaw v. Shaw, 99 Vt. 356, 358, 133 A. 248 (1926).
The dismissal of the petitioner’s petition for a modification of the alimony order is too far out of line with fairness and justice for me to subscribe to. I would reverse and remand.