Molleur v. Molleur
44 A.3d 763
| Vt. | 2012Background
- Married Aug 1989; separated July 2008; two children now adults.
- At divorce, key asset was husband's military pension; lived rent-free in father's home; other assets minimal.
- Husband deployed to Iraq; eligible for full-time Army retirement at 45 (2013) with ~50% of last-3-years base pay as pension; estimated ~$41,595/year ($3,466/mo) pre-tax.
- Wife was homemaker with episodic outside work; by final hearing net income ~$1,040/mo working 32 hours/week at a grocery.
- Trial court awarded wife 75% of the marital portion of the pension (~$1,444/mo, about 41.67% of total pension), maintenance $1,900–$2,100/mo 2011–2013 and $500/mo thereafter with automatic inflation adjustment, and $2,500 attorney’s fees.
- Court treated property and maintenance as interrelated; remanded to amend the automatic inflation-adjustment provision to conform with statutory and case-law requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 75% marital-pension share to wife is justified | Molleuur argues the share favors wife without adequate merit or contribution. | Molleuur contends court misweighs marital-factoring and overcompensates wife. | Affirmed as to the property award; remanded only to fix inflation-adjustment provision. |
| Whether permanent maintenance is proper | Husband claims maintenance relies too heavily on needs, not contributions. | Wife argues maintenance aligns with long marriage and homemaker contributions. | Affirmed; maintenance within court’s broad discretion. |
| Whether automatic inflation adjustment for maintenance is unlawful | Husband argues formula improperly tracks inflation and ignores income pace. | Wife contends automatic adjustment is appropriate under Roya/Bell guidance. | Remanded to amend inflation-adjustment provision with a workable, income-aware formula. |
| Interrelation of property and maintenance awards | Property-distribution (pension) should not hinge on maintenance considerations. | Awards are interrelated; remand may require revisiting both. | Court treated awards as interrelated; remand for possible reassessment. |
| Remand scope and guidance | No opinion on precise new formula; seeks correction. | Remand appropriate to implement Roya/Bell-compliant formula. | Remand ordered to amend automatic inflation-adjustment provision consistent with statutory factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenike v. Jenike, 2004 VT 83 (Vt. 2004) (maintenance not punished; factors guide just maintenance award)
- Roya v. Roya, 145 Vt. 488 (Vt. 1985) (automatic COLA with workable formula; must account for payor's income)
- Bell v. Bell, 162 Vt. 192 (Vt. 1994) (require inflation adjustments with income-pace considerations)
- Klein v. Klein, 150 Vt. 466 (Vt. 1988) (homemaker contributions and maintenance linkage to marital contributions)
- Mayville v. Mayville, 2010 VT 94 (Vt. 2010) (pension as part of property/maintenance planning; balancing factors)