 |
| So, just check the box? |
By Elizabeth Kruska
Life is pretty grand when people agree. That’s partly why this particular case got reversed.
Sandra Penland and John Warren were previously married and got divorced. As part of their divorce, the agreement was that they would each get 50% of Mr. Warren’s pension that he got from working as a teacher. The parties took the appropriate steps to divide the pension, the divorce was final, and they moved on.
Some years later, Mr. Warren discovered he had a health issue that may jeopardize the pension. If I read this correctly, if he dies, the pension payouts would end. That would mean Ms. Penland’s portion of the pension payouts would also end—and likely much sooner than both parties anticipated—which isn’t what either of them wanted. So, he and Ms. Penland discussed the matter and agreed they would change the divorce order so that he would keep the pension, making it only pay out to him during the rest of his lifetime, and he would give Ms. Penland a cash payment in the sum that would have been half the value of the pension. They both agreed this was a win-win situation; Ms. Penland would be made whole with the amount of money she believed she’d get, and Mr. Warren would be able to maintain the pension during his life.
They filed a stipulation with the court under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule allows for relief from or modification of judgments after the fact under certain circumstances. But those circumstances have to be pretty extraordinary. Otherwise people would be in and out of court every other week trying to change a final order. Nobody would get anything done. I have an unhealthy zeal for getting things done. This would drive me bananas.
Add to that the fact that there’s a significant emphasis in Vermont on finality when it comes to divorce property settlements. When those are done, they are done. There had better be a darned good reason to try to modify one of those.
The Family Court believed there was no jurisdiction to entertain the stipulated motion and denied it. The parties filed again, and it got denied again. They appeal, and SCOV reverses.
SCOV agrees that it’s a pretty rare circumstance that a property settlement under Rule 60(b) can be reopened. The point of the rule is to prevent hardship or injustice as a result of a judgment. However, it’s not meant to be used as a rear-view mirror, of sorts, and to second guess what the parties did or choices the parties made in the initial litigation. So, it’s there, but it’s limited.
All that having been said, SCOV isn’t taking a position on whether or not the stipulation should have been granted. SCOV points out a really important factor in this particular case they want the trial court to consider: the fact it’s a stipulation. Neither party is asking to come to court to re-litigate the issue. Both parties are coming to court saying that unfortunately Mr. Warren’s health diagnosis was an unforeseen circumstance that would have a negative effect on the divorce order, and they agree about how to solve it. SCOV finds the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion without considering that piece, along with the other factors that cause parties to need to raise the issue in the first place, and so reverses the matter.
Comments
Post a Comment