Joseph Clough v. Olga Arapina
2016-127
| Vt. | Nov 4, 2016Background
- Parties married June 2013; separated August 2014; wife is a Ukrainian citizen who entered on a fiancée visa and had limited ability to work in the U.S.
- Wife brought cash and prior property in Ukraine; husband refused to sign an affidavit-of-support immigration form and conditioned signing on selling wife’s Ukrainian apartment.
- Husband filed for divorce October 2014; wife moved for temporary spousal maintenance and the court granted $1,000/month retroactive to October 2014 through June 2015.
- At the final hearing the court found both contributed financially, valued wife’s Ukrainian home at $50,000 given uncertainty, and rejected husband’s claim that the marriage was fraudulent.
- The court found husband’s monthly income about $4,075 and determined he could pay $1,000/month for the limited period; it awarded enforcement relief for unpaid temporary maintenance and $450 in attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to temporary spousal maintenance | Wife supported herself during marriage and thus lacks threshold need for maintenance | Wife cannot support herself at the marriage standard because she cannot legally work and has limited assets | Court: substantial evidence supports finding wife lacked sufficient income and could not work; maintenance proper |
| Amount/duration and husband’s ability to pay | Husband lacked ability to pay $1,000/month given his expenses | Maintenance was short-term and tied to wife's inability to work; husband had capacity to pay | Court: within discretion—$1,000/month for limited period was reasonable given income/assets/evidence |
| Enforcement of unpaid temporary maintenance | (Implicit) Challenge to obligation to pay alleged unpaid amount | Wife sought enforcement of $8,000 owed (court found $8,000, paid $400) | Court enforced order, required payment of unpaid maintenance plus $450 in fees |
| Enforceability of notarized June 2014 statement ("we will divorce; keep our homes; want nothing from each other") | Statement is an enforceable agreement the court should honor | Wife contends statement was not a mutual enforceable agreement (claimed duress) | Court: single-party notarized statement was not an enforceable agreement; court need not reach duress question |
Key Cases Cited
- Delozier v. Delozier, 161 Vt. 377 (1994) (standard of review: maintenance awards are within trial court’s broad discretion)
- Sochin v. Sochin, 177 Vt. 540 (2004) (appellate review of factual findings: affirm if credible evidence supports them)
- Mayville v. Mayville, 189 Vt. 1 (2010) (ability to pay is one of several factors in setting maintenance)
- Bassler v. Bassler, 156 Vt. 353 (1991) (enforceability of premarital/ante-nuptial-type agreements)
- Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2011) (cases enforcing affidavit-of-support obligations in immigration-context divorces)