Mayville v. Mayville
2010 VT 94, 12 A.3d 500, 189 Vt. 1 (2010)
Rule of Law:
In determining whether to modify a spousal maintenance award, a court may consider income from an obligor's pension, even if that pension was previously divided as a marital asset during the divorce. A modification is only warranted upon a showing of a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances.
Facts:
- William Mayville and Judy Mayville divorced in 2003 after 27 years of marriage.
- At the time of the divorce, William earned over $100,000 annually at IBM, while Judy was disabled and had never been employed.
- Pursuant to their divorce agreement, William was ordered to pay Judy $3,000 per month in spousal maintenance, and his IBM pension was divided equally between them.
- In April 2009, William, age 59, was laid off from his job at IBM.
- Upon being laid off, William received a severance package that included six months' salary, amounting to $52,000.
- Due to his salary, severance, pension, and unemployment benefits, William's total income for 2009 was $135,000, which was higher than his income in the preceding years.
- William remarried a woman who earns approximately $50,000 annually, which contributes to their shared household expenses.
- Judy lives on the spousal maintenance and $1,405 per month in Social Security benefits and has significant ongoing medical expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2003, a court order incorporated William and Judy Mayville's divorce agreement, which included a spousal maintenance provision.
- On April 17, 2009, William Mayville filed a motion to terminate his spousal maintenance obligation in the Chittenden Family Court.
- After hearings, the family court ordered William to continue paying $3,000 per month until his unemployment benefits expired, at which point the obligation would be reduced to $1,500 per month.
- William Mayville, as the appellant, appealed the family court's order to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's loss of employment constitute a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances sufficient to terminate a spousal maintenance obligation, when that party's total income for the year of the job loss did not decrease and they have other income sources, including a pension previously divided as a marital asset?
Opinions:
Majority - Dooley, J.
No. A party's loss of employment does not constitute a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances sufficient to terminate a spousal maintenance obligation where the party's overall financial situation has not yet substantially worsened. The court rejected the 'double-dipping' theory, holding that it is proper to consider income from the obligor's portion of a pension, even if the pension itself was equitably distributed as a marital asset. The court found that because William Mayville's income in 2009 actually increased due to his severance package, there was no substantial change in circumstances at the time of the hearing. The court may also consider the income of a new spouse to the extent it reduces the obligor's personal expenses and thus affects his ability to pay. Finally, the wife's receipt of Social Security benefits was not an 'unanticipated' event that could justify modification, as the parties were aware of her future eligibility.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the majority rule that rejects the 'double-dipping' argument, clarifying that a pension divided as an asset can still be treated as an income source for maintenance calculations. It establishes that the key inquiry for modification is the obligor's overall financial capacity, not just the loss of a specific job. The case also provides a pragmatic framework for courts dealing with motions filed in anticipation of future income loss, allowing for tiered orders that address both current finances and foreseeable future changes, thereby promoting judicial efficiency by reducing the need for parties to return to court repeatedly.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Mayville v. Mayville (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"