Billings v. Billings, Sr., 35 A.3d 1030

Married June 8, 1985; three children, one minor at divorce.
Wife stayed home and now marginally employed; current income capacity $12,000.
Husband earned $57,864 annually at Gillingham & Sons and $21,000 as Woodstock Aqueduct Company director/officer.
Assets were limited and largely gifts from husband’s family; significant assets included husband’s partial home interest in a qualified residence trust and two small equity interests; debts were substantial ($170,070 unsecured).
Family court distributed assets, awarded wife maintenance, and nullified husband’s maintenance arrearage of $8,312.74; trial court denied evidence of revocable trusts/wills as marital property evidence.
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed on the limine issue and remanded for reconsideration of property distribution and maintenance; it later concluded revocable trust interests may be considered under 15 V.S.A. § 751(b)(8).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the limine ruling excluding revocable trusts/wills was an abuse of discretion	Wife argues exclusion denied consideration of future asset opportunities	Husband argues revocable interests are non-marital expectancies	Limine error; revocable trust interests may be considered under § 751(b)(8) for future asset opportunities
Whether irrevocable trusts were properly treated as marital property	Wife asserts trusts are marital property; values were not determined	Husband’s interests were properly allocated due to lack of valuation evidence	Irrevocable trusts may be marital property; court erred in valuing/allocating without sufficient evidence; remand for reconsideration
Whether maintenance arrearage was properly nullified	Arrearage should be enforceable despite debt allocations	Arrearage considered in balancing debt and support	Arrearage nullification within the court’s discretion; remand for overall reconsideration on remand
Legal treatment of future inheritances and trust assets under § 751(b)(8)	Future inheritances/trusts should influence property distribution	Such expectancies are uncertain and should be treated cautiously	Court may consider likely future assets under § 751(b)(8); exclude only perpetual speculation; remand for reevaluation

Wade v. Wade, 178 Vt. 189, 878 A.2d 303 (Vt. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard in divorce property awards; requires explanation of rationale)
Atwood v. Atwood, 465 A.2d 1354 (Vt. 1983) (wide discretion in property division)
Mizzi v. Mizzi, 179 Vt. 555, 889 A.2d 753 (Vt. 2005) (consideration of future inheritance under § 751(b)(8) with uncertainty affects weight)
Chilkott v. Chilkott, 607 A.2d 883, 158 Vt. 193 (Vt. 1992) (trust interests; ascertainable value; treatment of irrevocable trusts)
Rubin v. Rubin, 527 A.2d 1184 (Conn. 1987) (future inheritance considered or not; speculative)
In re Githens, 204 P.3d 835 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (revocable trusts as non-marital property; distinctions between sources)