Donna Mannings v. Charles Mannings
2016-066
| Vt. | Nov 4, 2016Background
- Parties married 26 years with two sons; husband worked as HVAC service technician, earning about $81,000/year; wife worked in the food industry earning about $25,000/year.
- Parties stipulated to virtually equal division of marital assets (each ~$84,300): wife received most retirement accounts and a vehicle; husband received the marital home, some retirement funds, and a truck.
- Parties disagreed only on spousal maintenance amount, duration, and cost-of-living adjustments; court held contested hearing with both testifying.
- Trial court found wife lacks sufficient income to meet reasonable needs and cannot support herself at marital standard of living; awarded maintenance of $1,250/month until husband’s retirement (age 66y8m), then $500/month thereafter.
- Court included automatic annual increases tied to husband’s salary increases (10% of increases over $81,000 pre-retirement) and tied post-retirement increases to 20% of cost-of-living increases in husband’s Social Security.
- Husband appealed, arguing maintenance amount excessive, post-retirement maintenance improper, and automatic adjustments unfair; also alleged dissipation by wife but court found no dissipation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of preretirement maintenance | Award ($1,250/mo) is too high given incomes and wife's lack of complete expense form | Some maintenance warranted; testimony provided sufficient expense evidence | Affirmed: court had reasonable basis considering incomes, needs, and statutory factors |
| Post-retirement maintenance | Maintenance after husband's retirement should not be ordered | Permanent/post-retirement maintenance appropriate given long marriage, wife's role, and income disparity | Affirmed: long-term marriage and wife's limited earning capacity support post-retirement award |
| Automatic cost-of-living adjustments | Formula could be unfair if husband's income drops or wife's income rises; speculative future makes formula problematic | Adjustment permissible if workable and sensitive to payor; formula tied to husband's actual income | Affirmed: adjustment formulas are workable and tied to husband's income/increases; modification available for substantial change |
| Dissipation of marital assets | Wife spent excessively and dissipated assets via credit-card use | Wife spent on family needs; testimony showed reasonable spending | Affirmed: trial court’s finding of no dissipation is supported by the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Gravel v. Gravel, 186 Vt. 250 (2009) (family court has broad discretion in amount and duration of maintenance)
- Kohut v. Kohut, 164 Vt. 40 (1995) (maintenance amount reviewed for reasonable basis)
- Delozier v. Delozier, 161 Vt. 377 (1994) (duration of maintenance turns on recipient’s marital role and earning capacity)
- Molleur v. Molleur, 191 Vt. 202 (2012) (automatic adjustments to maintenance are permissible if formula is workable and sensitive to payor)