Penland v. Warren, 18-004
| Docket Nº | No. 18-004 |
| Citation | 194 A.3d 755 |
| Case Date | July 13, 2018 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
194 A.3d 755
Sandra L. PENLAND (Warren)
v.
John W. WARREN, Jr.
No. 18-004
Supreme Court of Vermont.
May Term, 2018
July 13, 2018
Sandra L. Penland (Warren), Pro Se, West Lebanon, New Hampshire, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Susan Buckholz, Quechee, for Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Skoglund, Robinson and Carroll, JJ., and Morris, Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned
REIBER, C.J.
¶ 1. Husband appeals the trial court's denial of husband and wife's joint motion to modify their final divorce order. The issue in this case is whether the trial court has jurisdiction under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to modify a property-division order based on the agreement of the parties after the divorce order has become absolute. We hold the court does have jurisdiction, and accordingly we reverse and remand.
¶ 2. Husband and wife divorced in 2011. Under their final stipulated property division, they each received fifty percent of husband's pension from the Vermont Teachers Retirement System. Husband transferred a half-interest to wife by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), and she has received regular payments since the divorce.
¶ 3. Sometime after the divorce became final, husband received a medical diagnosis that precluded employment and shortened his life expectancy. His inability to work increased his need for his full pension income. Because husband's pension is tied to his life, husband's health issues meant wife would lose her income from husband's pension if he predeceased her, and she might not receive the full value of her interest as contemplated in the final divorce order. Therefore, the parties agreed to modify the final property division in a way they believed would be mutually beneficial. Husband obtained an actuarial valuation of the remainder of his pension. Husband agreed to pay wife one-half of the remaining value of his pension in a lump sum from his share of his mother's trust. In exchange, wife agreed to have the full value of husband's pension restored to him so that he would receive the full benefit of the pension income.
¶ 4. In August 2017, the parties filed a joint motion pursuant to Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to modify the final divorce order in accordance
with this agreement. The court denied the motion, stating it lacked jurisdiction to modify the property division in a final divorce order and the parties could form an independent contractual arrangement. In November 2017, the parties filed a second joint motion to modify the final divorce order according to the same terms, and the court again denied the motion on the same basis.
¶ 5. Husband appeals this order, and wife agrees with and supports husband's request for relief. The parties argue that the court abused its discretion in denying their joint motion under Rule 60(b)(6) because a modification is necessary to prevent hardship and injustice to the parties. They also note that their motion was filed within a reasonable time and the other subcategories of Rule 60(b) do not apply.
¶ 6. We review a court's exercise of discretion in denying a request for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) for an abuse of discretion. Richwagen v. Richwagen, 153 Vt. 1, 3-4, 568 A.2d 419, 420 (1989) (reviewing decision regarding Rule 60(b)(6) request to modify property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re C.L.S.
...court has authority to exercise its discretion is a legal issue that we review de novo." Penland v. Warren, 2018 VT 70, ¶ 6, 208 Vt. 15, 194 A.3d 755 ; see also State v. Pecora, 2007 VT 41, ¶ 4, 181 Vt. 627, 928 A.2d 479 (mem.) (explaining that interpretation of statute is subject to de nov......
-
In re C.L.S.
...court has authority to exercise its discretion is a legal issue that we review de novo." Penland v. Warren, 2018 VT 70, ¶ 6, 208 Vt. 15, 194 A.3d 755; see also State v. Pecora, 2007 VT 41, ¶ 4, Page 5181 Vt. 627, 928 A.2d 479 (mem.) (explaining that interpretation of statute is subject to d......
-
In re K.S.
...to consider mother's second Rule 60 motion is a legal question that we review de novo. See Penland v. Warren, 2018 VT 70, ¶ 6, 208 Vt. 15, 194 A.3d 755. "Because the jurisdiction of the trial courts is shaped by the legislature, subject matter jurisdiction is a question of statutory interpr......
-
In re K.S.
...to consider mother's second Rule 60 motion is a legal question that we review de novo. See Penland v. Warren, 2018 VT 70, ¶ 6, 208 Vt. 15, 194 A.3d 755. "Because the jurisdiction of the trial courts is shaped by the legislature, subject matter jurisdiction is a question of statutory interpr......
-
Review of the Year 2019 in Family Law: Case Digests
...from establishing residency, which was required for trial court to have subject matter jurisdiction over an action. Penland v. Warren , 194 A.3d 755 (Vt. 2018). This case arises from an appeal brought when the trial court denied the husband and wife’s joint motion to modify their inal divor......