Stickney v. Stickney, 99-031.

• Docket Nº: No. 99-031.
• Citation: 742 A.2d 1228
• Case Date: October 08, 1999
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont

742 A.2d 1228

Gail L. STICKNEY
v.
Peter C. STICKNEY

No. 99-031.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

October 8, 1999.

742 A.2d 1229

Present DOOLEY, MORSE, JOHNSON and SKOGLUND, JJ., and GIBSON, J. (Ret.) Specially Assigned

ENTRY ORDER

Plaintiff Gail Stickney appeals a reduction of the maintenance award she received in 1991 following her divorce from defendant Peter Stickney. She argues that the trial court erred in finding that there existed a change in circumstances, pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 758, to justify such a reduction. She further argues that even if a change in circumstances exists, the court abused its discretion by modifying her permanent spousal maintenance award from $1,800 per week to $0. We affirm the trial court's finding that a change of circumstances has occurred, but reverse and remand its finding that the maintenance award should be reduced from $1,800 to $0.

Plaintiff and defendant were married on August 26, 1966. The marriage produced

742 A.2d 1230

two children, both of whom have attained the age of majority. At the beginning of the marriage, plaintiff worked as a medical secretary and provided most of the financial support for the parties while defendant attended medical school

Following the birth of their first child in 1970, plaintiff stopped working outside the home. After defendant's graduation from medical school that same year, defendant started a practice and worked long hours establishing it. During this time, plaintiff was the primary caregiver to the children, managed the couple's finances and organized their social life. In 1989, the couple began to experience financial difficulties, brought on in part by their lavish spending and defendant's back problems which rendered him unable to work for a period of time. In August 1990 plaintiff filed for divorce.

After the parties had separated, plaintiff received financial and emotional support from Mark Stickney, defendant's brother. A divorce was granted on December 20, 1991. In its decree, the family court awarded plaintiff $1,800 in permanent maintenance, based in part on the fact that plaintiff had been out of the work force for twenty years and had no experience or vocational skills to enable her to support herself in a manner approximating the standard of living established during the marriage.

In June 1992, the parties entered into a stipulation agreement temporarily reducing defendant's maintenance obligation to $1,200 per week. This temporary reduction took into account the fact that defendant had filed for bankruptcy and that he had agreed to assume the parties' significant debt owed to the IRS. Defendant's maintenance obligation would return to $1,800 per week by June 1998 at the latest, according to a schedule based on his retiring of the parties' tax indebtedness.

In January 1998, defendant filed a motion to modify spousal maintenance, alleging that his income had failed to meet projected increases and his practice's operating expenses substantially exceeded the court's projections anticipated in the final divorce order. He further offered as support for a change in circumstances the fact that plaintiff had made no effort to complete her education and obtain employment as contemplated by the prior order, and that plaintiff's standard of living had substantially improved because of the financial support she received from Mark Stickney.

Following a hearing on defendant's motion in July 1998, the court found defendant had met his burden and demonstrated a change in circumstances...