Kathleen Zink v. Bryan Zink, 147 A.3d 75

Parties divorced in 2007 by stipulation; husband ordered to pay permanent spousal maintenance of $1,800/month.
By 2015 wife moved from the former condominium, obtained employment (UVM) and receives retirement and Social Security income; her housing costs decreased.
Husband is a self-employed truck driver, later remarried and moved into a house; reports effective annual earnings ~$40,000 and increased housing expenses; household has ~ $50,000 equity.
Husband sometimes paid less than $1,800/month and told wife he could not afford the full amount; wife sometimes suggested accepting lower sums so she would receive something.
Trial court found no enforceable modification agreement, concluded husband failed to show a “real, substantial, and unanticipated” change in circumstances, enforced arrears ($42,542) but found husband presently unable to pay and denied contempt/fees.
Supreme Court reversed on changed-circumstances standard and remanded for further proceedings, also directing the trial court to address whether wife’s conduct constituted waiver/estoppel as to past arrears.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Zink)	Defendant's Argument (Zink)	Held
Whether husband demonstrated a "real, substantial, and unanticipated" change of circumstances warranting modification of permanent spousal maintenance	Husband: increased housing costs from remarriage and wife’s increased income/reduced needs amount to changed circumstances justifying modification	Wife: these events were foreseeable and thus not "unanticipated"; maintenance should remain as ordered	Court: Trial court applied incorrect standard ("realm of ordinary foresight"); remanded because the factual record could support a finding of unanticipated change relative to assumptions at divorce
Whether parties’ repeated reduced payments over years constituted an enforceable modification, waiver, or equitable estoppel barring wife’s claim for past arrears	Husband: wife agreed to accept reduced payments over years; that agreement should bar enforcement of full arrears	Wife: modifications cannot be effective before the date of a filed motion to modify; she did not agree to permanently alter the court order	Court: Modification of the court order cannot be retroactive before the motion filing date; but whether wife’s conduct effected a waiver/estoppel as to past-due installments is distinct and must be addressed on remand

Herring v. Herring, 24 A.3d 574 (Vt. 2011) ("unanticipated" analyzed by comparing facts considered at divorce to later events affecting income)
Taylor v. Taylor, 819 A.2d 684 (Vt. 2003) (changes in income or remarriage can warrant modification of maintenance)
Hausermann v. Hausermann, 75 A.3d 608 (Vt. 2013) (trial court may set modification effective as of any reasonable date on or after filing of motion)
Shaw v. Shaw, 648 A.2d 836 (Vt. 1994) (modification requires showing that contingency was not considered in original award)
Quenneville v. Buttolph, 833 A.2d 1263 (Vt. 2003) (appellate review standard for overturning trial court factual findings)