Hammond v. Hammond, 111-75

Decision Date01 June 1976
Docket NumberNo. 111-75,111-75
Citation134 Vt. 318,360 A.2d 71
PartiesForrest HAMMOND v. Iona HAMMOND.
CourtVermont Supreme Court

Leighton C. Detora of Richard E. Davis Associates, Inc., Barre, for plaintiff.

Cornelius O. Granai, Barre, for defendant.

Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, DALEY, LARROW and BILLINGS, JJ.

BILLINGS, Justice.

The parties were awarded reciprocating divorces by the Washington Superior Court. As part of the decree, and in full satisfaction of any support claims, plaintiff-appellant was ordered to pay to defendant-appellee an alimony in gross award of $1,500, payable thrity days from the date of the order. From this part of the divorce decree plaintiff appeals, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in authorizing an award to this extent.

The trial court found that the parties were married on February 18, 1972, and separated around Christmas of 1972, and that during the marriage both parties had approximately the same amount of income, with defendant contributing more financially to the marriage than plaintiff. The court found that at the time of the divorce plaintiff's net assets amounted to $66.

Upon dissolution of marriage, the court may decree to either party such part of the real and personal estate of one spouse as it deems just, having regard to the circumstances of the parties. 15 V.S.A. § 754. A decree for alimony is a matter of wide discretion and, unless such discretion has been withheld or abused, the decree must stand. LaFarr v. LaFarr, 132 Vt. 191, 315 A.2d 235 (1974); Lafko v. Lafko, 127 Vt. 609, 256 A.2d 166 (1969).

In the case at bar defendant was awarded alimony in gross, payable within thirty days, and hence the trial court did not take into consideration periodic payments from future income. The trial court in such cases is limited by the definition of the term 'estate' in 15 V.S.A. § 754 to the total net value of the parties' estate at the time of the decree. Here the trial court awarded defendant gross...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ely v. Ely, 124-80
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1981
    ...it be in light of plaintiff's $18,000 per year income, clearly a major factor in the trial court's award. Cf. Hammond v. Hammond, 134 Vt. 318, 319, 360 A.2d 71, 72 (1976) (distinguishing periodic alimony and alimony in The argument of the plaintiff is a difficult one to follow. He admits th......
  • Ruhe v. Ruhe, 535-81
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1983
    ...action is warranted only where such discretion has been improperly exercised, or has exceeded its bounds. Hammond v. Hammond, 134 Vt. 318, 319, 360 A.2d 71, 71 (1976). On the record before us, however, plaintiff has not met this burden, for the findings are ample and well-supported, and the......
  • Nichols v. Nichols, 105-75
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1976

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT