Barrup v. Barrup
111 A.3d 414
Vt.2014Background
- Tammy and Kevin Barrup divorced; final divorce decree (2007) divided marital property and awarded spousal maintenance to Tammy.
- The decree described an LPL portfolio (including CNB stock) and split most accounts 70% to Tammy / 30% to Kevin; one CNB account’s ownership later became disputed.
- Kevin later claimed one CNB account was owned by his mother (Marilyn) as part of her estate plan; wife and earlier orders treated the account as marital property.
- Marilyn moved to intervene post-judgment asserting recorded ownership of the disputed CNB account and seeking to protect her property and due-process rights; the court allowed intervention.
- After a hearing, the family court found the disputed CNB account was jointly titled to Kevin and Marilyn with survivorship, presumed equal ownership, and ordered Marilyn to convey 70% of Kevin’s 50% interest (i.e., 35% of the account) to Tammy. The court also modestly reduced Kevin’s spousal maintenance.
- Both Tammy and Marilyn appealed aspects of the post-judgment order; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barrup) | Defendant's Argument (Barrup/Marilyn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marilyn could intervene post-judgment | Marilyn was not entitled to intervene after final decree; untimely and prejudicial | Marilyn’s recorded ownership interests were directly affected; intervention necessary to protect property and avoid multiplicity of suits | Intervention allowed; court did not abuse discretion given Marilyn’s recorded interest and potential prejudice otherwise |
| Characterization of disputed CNB account as marital property | Wife: account (as titled/treated in loan docs) was marital and distributable | Marilyn/Kevin: account belonged to Marilyn (estate planning) and not subject to distribution | Trial court correctly found joint title and presumed equal ownership; half of account was distributable |
| Proper share of account subject to distribution | Wife: court should have treated full account as subject to distribution in line with original division | Marilyn: joint-title means her entire undivided interest cannot be used to satisfy Kevin’s obligations | Court adopted the rebuttable presumption that each joint owner holds an equal share for garnishment/division; 50% of account attributed to Kevin for distribution |
| Whether property division should be rebalanced to offset Marilyn’s interest | Wife: court’s amendment reduced her overall share; court should compensate or readjust distribution | Marilyn: court may limit remedy to ordering Kevin/Marilyn to transfer Kevin’s distributable share | Court acted within discretion in retaining original 70/30 proportion on remainder and awarding wife 70% of Kevin’s 50% share; no abuse of discretion |
| Modification of spousal maintenance | Wife: evidence insufficient; downward modification improper | Kevin: substantial, unanticipated income decline justified reduction | Court’s findings of real, substantial, unanticipated change supported modest reduction (from $1,000 to $850/month); within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brousseau v. Brousseau, 182 Vt. 533, 927 A.2d 773 (Vt. 2007) (presumption that titling property in another’s name conveys present beneficial interest)
- Elwell v. Vt. Commc’ns Mktg. Grp., Inc., 133 Vt. 627, 349 A.2d 218 (Vt. 1975) (intervention may be permitted after final judgment where intervenor would be prejudiced otherwise)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 155 Vt. 36, 580 A.2d 503 (Vt. 1990) (family court has wide discretion in property disposition on divorce)
- Meyer v. Meyer, 173 Vt. 195, 789 A.2d 921 (Vt. 2001) (standard for modifying spousal maintenance: real, substantial, and unanticipated change)
- Stickney v. Stickney, 170 Vt. 547, 742 A.2d 1228 (Vt. 1999) (broad discretion in amount and duration of spousal maintenance)
- Houghton v. Leinwohl, 135 Vt. 380, 376 A.2d 733 (Vt. 1977) (rulings on post-judgment motions reviewed for abuse of discretion)