Richard v. Richard
99 A.3d 193
Vt.2014Background
- Ellen and Gilles Richard divorced; final decree (Dec 2012) required Gilles to pay Ellen $11,500 in cash on or before Feb 28, 2013, or to transfer equivalent funds via a QDRO.
- The decree required Gilles to “timely take all steps necessary” to obtain funds, including preparing a QDRO if chosen.
- Gilles initiated the QDRO process before Feb 28 but did not complete the transfer by that date; QDRO approved Apr 15 and funds transferred June 7, 2013.
- Ellen filed a motion to enforce/contempt on Mar 1, 2013; the court scheduled a status conference and stated plaintiff was entitled to legal interest starting Feb 28, 2013.
- The family court denied contempt (no willfulness) but ordered Gilles to pay $373.30 in interest from Feb 28 to June 7, treating the award as a clarification of the decree.
- Gilles appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to modify a final property-distribution order by adding interest after judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court impermissibly modified the final divorce decree by awarding interest | Richard (wife) argued the court could enforce the decree and award post-judgment interest on the unpaid fixed obligation | Gilles (husband) argued adding interest fundamentally modified the final property-distribution order and exceeded the court's authority to alter a final decree | Court held the interest award was not a substantive modification but the application of statutory post-judgment interest to a fixed judgment; affirmed |
| Whether post-judgment interest could run from Feb 28, 2013 | Ellen argued Feb 28 was the clear deadline and interest properly runs from that date | Gilles argued QDRO processing timelines mean only initiation was required and interest should not run from Feb 28 | Court held the decree unambiguously required full payment by Feb 28, so legal interest ran from that date |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Child Support ex rel. Lewis v. Lewis, 178 Vt. 204 (Vt. 2004) (standard of review for legal questions)
- Brault v. Flynn, 166 Vt. 585 (Vt. 1996) (post-judgment interest is recoverable under Vermont law)
- Viskup v. Viskup, 149 Vt. 89 (Vt. 1987) (final property-distribution decrees are generally not subject to later modification)