Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W were married in 1967 following H's first year of law school. H began his legal practice in Vermont. They had a son in 1970 and a daughter in 1972. W remained home to care for the children full time until 1975, at which time she began pursuing her master's degree in education. In 1977, having received her degree, W began work as a junior high school guidance counselor. In 1981, she became a high school guidance counselor and has continued in that job to the present. In 1987, after twenty years of marriage, the parties separated. W filed for divorce in 1989. In 1991, her annual income before taxes was $45,237; H's annual income before taxes was $137,600. At the time of divorce, both were forty-eight years old. The court found that the parties' assets totaled $1,257,577 and their liabilities $498,773. The court ordered the parties' assets to be split 60% to W and 40% to H. In so decreeing, the court awarded each spouse the respective homes but required that both homes be sold and the equity divided 60/40. H was ordered to pay maintenance at $2,000 per month. H appealed on five grounds: (1) the family court erred in its determination that W had established grounds for maintenance; (2) the court's maintenance order exceeds its authority and is, therefore, an abuse of discretion; (3) the court had no evidence upon which to base its maintenance award to compensate W for her monetary and nonmonetary contributions to the marriage; (4) the court exceeded its authority in ordering H to sell his residence; and (5) the court erred in requiring H to pledge his law firm interest or alternatively to purchase life insurance in the amount of that interest to secure maintenance payments to W in the event of H's death before age sixty-five.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co