Gil v. Gil, 88-468
| Decision Date | 02 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-468,88-468 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | David GIL v. Gloria B. GIL. |
Agel & Curtis, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellant.
Joseph D. Fallon, Hinesburg, for defendant-appellee.
Before ALLEN, C.J., PECK and DOOLEY, JJ., and CONNARN and SPRINGER, District Judges (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
The parties were divorced by order of the Bennington Superior Court in 1977. The court incorporated stipulations of the parties regarding the division of property, child custody, and alimony in the final decree. Plaintiff husband moved to modify the decree to terminate his alimony obligation, arguing a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances. He appeals from a trial court order declining modification. We affirm.
The parties had been married for thirty years at the time of the divorce and had four children, two of whom were residing with defendant wife and were fifteen and seventeen years old. Under the order the plaintiff was required to pay the defendant $15,000 per year commencing April 1, 1977 and ending "upon the death of either [h]usband or wife, the payments otherwise to continue for ten (10) years or until the remarriage of wife, whichever occurs later." Plaintiff paid pursuant to the stipulation and resultant decree for ten years and then ceased making payments. The defendant objected, after which the plaintiff commenced an action for "Declaratory Relief and Reformation." In his complaint plaintiff alleged that the parties intended that the alimony should cease after ten years and that the agreement should be so interpreted, or in the alternative, that the agreement should be reformed so as to reflect the true agreement of the parties that it terminate after 10 years. The trial court concluded that the agreement was clear and unambiguous and that there were no grounds for reformation. Plaintiff does not appeal this determination.
Plaintiff also sought to modify the order and does appeal from the trial court's determination that there were no real, substantial and unanticipated changes to justify modification of the order. He stressed in connection with this argument that the defendant was in a long-term cohabitation relationship, that she was now self-supporting, that none of the parties' children were living at home, and that his business fortunes had changed for the worse.
The trial court found that the cohabitation relationship existed at the time of the divorce, and that no matter how close to marriage the defendant's current relationship was, it was not in fact marriage. The court further found that the financial information presented did not entitle the plaintiff to relief, that any financial hardship plaintiff had suffered was self-inflicted, and that the annual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Miller, 04-187.
...should be terminated because she was in a "long-term cohabitation relationship" which involved sharing of expenses. 151 Vt. 598, 599, 563 A.2d 624, 625 (1989). We affirmed the trial court's refusal to find changed circumstances because the cohabitation relationship was in existence at the t......
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...of circumstances; if the required change has not occurred the court has no jurisdiction to modify the order. See id.; Gil v. Gil, 151 Vt. 598, 599, 563 A.2d 624, 625 (1989). The court can modify the maintenance award whether or not it "is based upon a stipulation or an agreement." 15 V.S.A.......
-
Mayo v. Mayo
...requires "a showing of a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances." 15 V.S.A. § 758; see also Gil v. Gil, 151 Vt. 598, 599, 563 A.2d 624, 625 (1989) (noting that such showing is a "jurisdictional prerequisite"). The burden of establishing that such a change has taken pla......
-
Schwartz v. Haas
...award requires "a showing of a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances." 15 V.S.A. § 758; see Gil v. Gil, 151 Vt. 598, 599, 563 A.2d 624, 625 (1989) (noting that such showing is a "jurisdictional prerequisite" with burden placed on party seeking modification). We view t......