Tschaikowsky v. Tschaikowsky, 103 A.3d 943

James and Leslie Tschaikowsky married in 1999 and later legally separated, with a final separation order incorporating their separation agreement on October 12, 2007.
The agreement divided real and personal property and included a provision for a “Subsequent Divorce” stating the parties would be bound by the agreement if a divorce action occurred and could be incorporated into a decree, consistent with court practices.
After the separation, James lived in England until 2010 and returned to the U.S.; in 2010 Leslie filed for divorce and attached the separation agreement to the complaint.
James sought summary judgment to enforce the separation agreement’s property-division terms in the forthcoming divorce, but the family court denied the motion.
The family court had previously modified parenting and child-support arrangements; the dispute here concerns only the property distribution terms from the separation agreement.
The Supreme Court held that the property-division terms incorporated into the final separation order are enforceable as a matter of law and final, subject to limited post-separation modifications for children and potential adjustments for substantial changes in circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the separation agreement incorporated into the final separation order is binding in a later divorce	Tschaikowsky argues enforceable as a final judgment.	Wife contends equity review is required in divorce and separation terms are not binding.	Yes; enforceable as a matter of law.
Whether the terms addressing property distribution in separation can be modified in the divorce	Agreement should govern property division as finalized.	Divorce court may reassess equity, potentially altering terms.	Separation terms remain enforceable; modification limited to certain post-separation adjustments (e.g., child-related provisions).

Pouech v. Pouech, 180 Vt. 1 (2006 VT 40) (trial court may reject stipulations before final divorce order; principles of fairness and equity guide.)
In re Dunkin Donuts S.P. Approval, 185 Vt. 583 (2008 VT 139) (stipulation incorporated into court order has preclusive effect as final judgment.)
Adamson v. Dodge, 816 A.2d 455 (2002 VT) (preserves preference for contract-like stipulations within domestic relations subject to judicial approval.)
Gerdel v. Gerdel, 313 A.2d 8 (1973 VT) (divorce authority is statutory and limited; separation cases require appropriate statutory interpretation.)
Pouech v. Pouech (repeat for context), 904 A.2d 70 (2006 VT 40) (emphasizes public policy favoring negotiated settlements in divorce actions.)