Hausermann v. Hausermann
194 Vt. 123
| Vt. | 2013Background
- Parties divorced in 2006 after a long-term marriage; divorce decree (stipulation) awarded wife $6,300/month spousal maintenance for 15 years.
- Husband (~$200K+ annual income) later diagnosed with throat cancer; in 2009 court reduced maintenance to $3,500/month after finding husband’s income had declined.
- Wife lived in the Dominican Republic and did not appear at the 2009 modification hearing; served by publication.
- In 2011 wife moved to reinstate original maintenance; husband moved to terminate. A hearing was held; court found husband had recovered and income returned to pre-illness levels.
- Court found wife living well below marital standard of living but had received ~$50,000 and likely to inherit ~$100,000 from brother’s probate estate; court averaged $150,000 over remaining term and set maintenance at $4,900/month effective the date of the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether modified maintenance should be effective retroactive to motion filing | Order should be retroactive to date wife filed motion because husband’s income had already rebounded by then | Court set effective date as date of its order (no retroactivity) | Court abused discretion by failing to explain choice of effective date; remand to reconsider effective date |
| Whether court properly considered likely inheritance in modifying maintenance | Inheritance not yet received; unknown amount; cannot be used to reduce maintenance absent showing it will improve wife’s need | Court treated probable $100K inheritance (plus $50K already received) as a substitute for maintenance by averaging over term | Court may consider probable future financial events, but here reduction based on inheritance lacked findings showing it would substantially reduce wife’s need; remand for further findings |
| Whether inheritance was sufficiently certain to be considered | Wife: uncertain until probated; should not be treated as guaranteed | Husband: estate in probate and evidence supported probable one-quarter share | Court did not err in concluding inheritance was more than a mere expectancy and could be considered |
| Whether wife’s standard of living has been equalized so reduction is appropriate | Wife: even with inheritance her standard of living remains below marital standard; need remains | Husband: increased income and wife’s assets justify lowering award | Court’s findings supported change in husband’s income but not sufficient findings that inheritance eliminated wife’s need; maintenance reduction based on inheritance reversed/remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Towne v. Towne, 552 A.2d 404 (Vt. 1988) (trial court has discretion to set retroactive effective date for support modifications)
- Chaker v. Chaker, 581 A.2d 737 (Vt. 1990) (applies Towne to maintenance effective-date decisions)
- Mayville v. Mayville, 12 A.3d 500 (Vt. 2010) (trial court may predict future financial circumstances when modifying maintenance)
- Miller v. Miller, 892 A.2d 175 (Vt. 2005) (changes like cohabitation affect maintenance only if they substantially reduce need)
- Gravel v. Gravel, 980 A.2d 242 (Vt. 2009) (maintenance aims to equalize marital standard of living and address income inequalities)
- Stickney v. Stickney, 742 A.2d 1228 (Vt. 1999) (compensatory maintenance has limits on downward modification)
- Meyncke v. Meyncke, 980 A.2d 799 (Vt. 2009) (affirming limits on reducing compensatory maintenance)