Phillips v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 14 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-075,94-075 |
| Citation | 664 A.2d 272,164 Vt. 600 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Roland T. PHILLIPS, III v. Carole L. PHILLIPS. |
Before ALLEN, C.J., and GIBSON, DOOLEY, MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Bennington Family Court requiring him to reimburse defendant for the amounts she expended to meet her health insurance deductible during the period he was obligated to pay the premium on such insurance. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The parties were divorced on March 18, 1992, and the final order required plaintiff "to maintain health insurance for [defendant] and for the children providing all benefits that existed on January 1, 1991 and January 1, 1992." Defendant moved to amend the order in a number of respects including claims that the court erred in not specifying the length of time during which plaintiff had to maintain the health insurance and that because there had been a change in health insurance companies between January 1991 and January 1992, it was unclear as to what coverage plaintiff was obligated to maintain. The motion was denied, and the parties thereafter entered into an agreement purporting to resolve all outstanding issues between them. Portions of the stipulation were incorporated into an amended final order, which contained identical language to the original order with respect to the health insurance. Defendant's concern regarding the change in policies between 1991 and 1992 was not addressed. The amended order limited plaintiff's obligation to ten years and provided for termination if defendant became employed under certain conditions.
Defendant filed a motion to enforce the order, alleging that plaintiff refused to abide by the terms with regard to the health insurance. At the hearing on the motion, the evidence disclosed that the deductible amount on the health insurance had increased from $100 to $500, and then to $1000; plaintiff initially paid the deductible when it increased to $500, but refused to pay over $100 after the increase to $1000. The court found that in July 1992 plaintiff promised defendant that he would continue to pay the policy's deductible, and ordered plaintiff to continue to pay the deductible for the length of his obligation to provide the insurance.
In this Court, plaintiff argues that the stipulation and its incorporation into the amended final order settled all outstanding issues between the parties and extinguished any oral contract. Defendant argues that plaintiff's earlier agreement to pay the deductible eliminated this as a contested issue, and it was therefore not resolved by merger into the final agreement.
The trial court found that plaintiff had no obligation to pay the deductible under either the original or amended order, but concluded that, as part of the negotiations of potentially appealable issues, plaintiff promised to pay the deductible in July 1992, and ordered plaintiff to reimburse defendant for the deductibles paid during the period of obligation.
We affirm the order requiring plaintiff to make the deductible payments, but on different grounds. See Hudson v. Town of East Montpelier, 161 Vt. 168, 170, 638 A.2d 561, 563 (1993) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sumner v. Sumner
...A.2d 390, 393 (1992). Where the language of the decree is unambiguous, we apply it according to its terms. See Phillips v. Phillips, 164 Vt. 600, 602, 664 A.2d 272, 274 (1995) (mem.); see also Duke v. Duke, 140 Vt. 543, 546, 442 A.2d 460, 462 (1982) ("Where the language is clear, the partie......
-
Sumner v. Sumner, 2004 VT 45 (VT 5/7/2004), 2003-267, October Term, 2003
...A.2d 390, 393 (1992). Where the language of the decree is unambiguous, we apply it according to its terms. See Phillips v. Phillips, 164 Vt. 600, 602, 664 A.2d 272, 274 (1995); see also Duke v. Duke, 140 Vt. 543, 546, 442 A.2d 460, 462 (1982) (" Where the language is clear, the parties to a......