[ back ]
Divorce: 50/50 After Fifty, After 13 Years?
Richard (48) divorced Suzanne (49), after 13 years of marriage. They had no children together, but Richard supported Suzanne’s children for a time. The Family Court found the cause of the divorce was Richard’s controlling and abusive behavior including threats of violence. Richard started and ran his own business selling and maintaining cranes (NHS) from which he earned about $60,000. Suzanne earned about $22,800 annually. They had a house worth about $135,000. They disputed the value of NHS; Susanne’s expert saying it was worth $281,000 and Richard’s saying it was worth $125,000. The Court accepted Wife’s value of NHS, and refused to allow Richard’s expert to testify because he didn’t tell Suzanne about him until the day of trial. The judge also awarded her the house plus $70,000 so that the marital assets would be divided 50/50. The court also divided the available income 50/50 awarding Suzanne spousal maintenance of $1,500 a month for 10 years ($180,000)
Richard appealed. He said the Court was wrong to accept Suzanne’s value of the business, and wrong to require him to pay alimony to equalize the parties’ income for 10 years in view of such a short marriage. His lawyer in the Supreme Court argued that the trial judge was biased, and engaged in improper conduct, so the Supreme Court should not give any deference to the trial judge.
First, the Supreme Court admonished Richard’s lawyer for improperly castigating the trial judge. (Ironically this abusive conduct seems similar to Richard’s marital behavior - not recommended behavior for an attorney). It then decided that a 50/50 property division after a 13-year marriage in spite of the fact that Richard had done military service, had built up NHS on his own, and helped support Suzanne’s children, was justified in part because of his abusive behavior. Further, the late disclosure of his expert witness was his own fault.
Richard argued the spousal maintenance award was too much for such a short marriage. He couldn’t pay both the $70,000 and $180,000 maintenance on his earnings. However, the Supreme Court said the award was within the discretion of the trial judge. The purpose of maintenance is to correct inequality of income, to equalize the standard of living for an appropriate period of time, to help the recipient spouse become self-supporting, and to compensate for homemaker contributions. The Supreme Court found no abuse in making the award. A limit of 10 years was consistent with the length of the marriage. It noted that the maintenance payment was tax deductible and would almost cover the expense of paying off the $70,000 over 10 years.
Equal division of both income and property after age 50 after a long marriage is foreseeable. If you abuse both your wife and the trial judge, income equalization for 10 years after a 13-year marriage is a risk. Gravel v. Gravel 2009 VT 77.
[ back ]
