Meyncke v. Meyncke
82 A.3d 585
Vt.2013Background
- Parties divorced in October 2007 after a 24-year marriage; final decree split marital property "evenly" and awarded wife $6,390/month maintenance for 13 years (with 2% COLA yearly starting as stated in the decree).
- The decree instructed husband to prepare a proposed QDRO to divide retirement accounts, notably a large 401(k); a proposed QDRO was not issued before wife filed post-judgment motions and an appeal, and the accounts (especially the 401(k)) declined in value before distribution.
- Wife obtained an August 2010 amended judgment for maintenance arrears and fees; parties later settled in July 2012 when husband paid $138,729 and wife executed documents stating that sum satisfied the August 2010 judgment.
- In May 2012 wife filed a motion to enforce the final divorce order and the August 2010 judgment seeking (among other relief) a QDRO awarding one-half of retirement accounts as valued in October 2007, additional maintenance arrears, interest, and fees.
- The superior court (Oct. 2012) ordered the retirement accounts divided equally but required sharing of any appreciation/depreciation between the final order date and distribution; it found $16,563 due in maintenance arrears post-August 2010 (after certain credits) and awarded $5,000 in attorney’s fees; neither party got full relief and both appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper valuation for QDRO and who bears loss from 401(k) decline | Wife: decree valued accounts at hearing; she is entitled to sum-certain equal to one-half of the October 2007 valuation (no share of loss). | Husband: retirement award was a percentage interest; parties should share gains/losses. | Court: award is a 50% share of the accounts, not a sum-certain; parties must share appreciation/depreciation between final order and distribution given delay and shared responsibility. |
| Need for hearing/evidence and who prepares QDRO | Wife: court should have held evidentiary hearing and not let husband unilaterally determine current values; wife seeks QDRO for fixed sum. | Husband: court can direct QDRO preparation consistent with its order; no new hearing required absent disputed facts. | Court: no hearing required on enforcement motion given parties did not request one and facts about delay are undisputed; remanded for discovery on current account values before final QDRO and court should set deadlines. |
| Maintenance arrears calculation and COLA misapplication | Wife: credits applied by court (Nov 2011 and Feb 2012 payments) were payments toward interest on the August 2010 judgment, not current maintenance; court erred in crediting them against post-2010 arrears. | Husband: July 2012 settlement satisfied August 2010 judgment; also alleges a clerical/math error in the August 2010 judgment (COLA applied one year early) and seeks Rule 60(a) correction; contends he owes no post-2010 arrears. | Court: settlement only satisfied the August 2010 judgment (arrears through that date); remand required to recalculate post-August 2010 maintenance based on the October 2007 decree (apply COLA beginning Nov. 2008), resolve intent/application of the contested payments, and determine the disputed $1,893 withholding adjustment. |
| Attorney’s fees and effect of July 2012 settlement clause | Wife: sought fees for enforcement; settlement said each party bears fees for collection of the satisfied August 2010 judgment. | Husband: settlement clause precludes any fee award. | Court: settlement clause limited to the action that produced the July 2012 payment and did not bar fees for subsequent enforcement motions; fee award may be revisited on remand depending on ultimate enforcement outcome. |
| Offset of child-support arrears | Wife: court failed to rule on her request to offset child-support arrears she owes against husband’s maintenance arrears. | Husband: does not oppose an equitable offset. | Court: remand for court to consider equitable offset once recalculation of maintenance arrears is complete (child is now of age; offset is discretionary). |
Key Cases Cited
- Sumner v. Sumner, 176 Vt. 452, 852 A.2d 611 (Vt. 2004) (divorce decrees interpreted under contract principles)
- Leas v. Leas, 169 Vt. 364, 737 A.2d 889 (Vt. 1999) (family court may account for post-decree changes in asset value before distribution)
- Buchanan v. Buchanan, 936 So. 2d 1084 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) (when decree awards percentage interest and both parties share delay, both share subsequent gains/losses)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 653 N.W.2d 524 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (percent-based award of 401(k) requires sharing market losses pending distribution)
- Austin v. Austin, 748 A.2d 996 (Me. 2000) (award of one-half of an account is a percentage interest, not a sum certain)
- Romer v. Romer, 44 So. 3d 514 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (distinguishing percentage awards from sum-certain awards where parties intended one spouse to bear market risk)