38 A.3d 50
Vt.2011Background
- Husband and wife married in 1979 and divorced in 2005; youngest child was nine at the time.
- Final 2005 order granted wife sole legal/physical rights and prohibited maintenance for either party while requiring mortgage, taxes, insurance, and upkeep costs to be shared as specified.
- The marital home was wife’s possession during the children’s minority, with unequal share provisions for sale proceeds (wife 52%, husband 48%) at the child’s age 18 or high school graduation, likely 2014.
- The court stated the home-related provisions were part of property division, not maintenance, and would not be modified post-final order absent fraud or other extraordinary circumstances.
- In August 2010, husband moved to modify the decree, claiming unemployment and financial hardship in continuing to share house costs; he sought removal from half of taxes and future maintenance and immediate sale of the house.
- The court dismissed the motion, concluding there were no grounds to modify under Rule 4, 59, or 60, and that Rule 60(b)(6) could not substitute for other law for preserving finality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly dismissed under Rule 60(b)(6). | Husband asserts abuse of discretion and merits consideration under 60(b)(6). | Wife/State argues no extraordinary circumstances; final property division should remain intact. | No abuse; denial within trial court discretion. |
| Whether house-related payments are maintenance or property division. | Husband contends payments resemble maintenance and could be modified. | Provisions are part of property division, not maintenance. | Provisions are property division; not maintenance. |
| Whether the court adequately addressed whether Rule 60(b)(6) merits existed. | Husband claims merits were not considered. | Court carefully weighed claims; no extraordinary circumstances found. | Court adequately considered claims; discretion preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boisselle v. Boisselle, 162 Vt. 240 (Vt. 1994) (cannot modify property dispositions absent fraud or coercion)
- Adamson v. Dodge, 174 Vt. 311 (Vt. 2002) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Cliche v. Cliche, 143 Vt. 301 (Vt. 1983) (relief from judgment limited to preventing hardship or injustice)
- Youngbluth v. Youngbluth, 2010 VT 40 (Vt. 2010) (great emphasis on finality of property divisions)