Two lawyers married in 1995.

The husband took over his father’s firm and prospered; the wife raised their four children.

The parties married in 1995, and husband filed for divorce in February 2020. The parties are both 50 years old and in good health. Both are licensed attorneys. They have four children together, all of whom are now adults. During the marriage, husband first worked in his father’s law firm and then started his own firm in 2003. He worked full-time at the firm and handled the parties’ finances. Wife was responsible for all aspects of caring for the parties’ children.

Then came divorce and an award that the husband challenged on appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court

The court concluded that wife was entitled to an award of spousal maintenance. This was a long-term marriage where, by agreement, husband pursued his legal career while wife raised their children. As a result, husband could now financially support himself and meet his reasonable needs while wife could not. Husband benefitted financially from having wife care for their children. The court found that the parties enjoyed a very comfortable lifestyle during the marriage. They owned three homes, took lengthy vacations, owned or leased luxury cars, and owned jewelry. Husband could continue to enjoy the standard of living he experienced during the marriage due to his advanced legal career. Wife planned to move to New York City, where her estimated monthly rent for a studio apartment was $3900. The court found that this expense alone would not be covered by wife’s present income. It found that wife could not support herself through appropriate employment at the standard of living established by the marriage, even if she were to obtain a position in the legal field. The court found, moreover, that wife made diligent efforts to find a position in the legal field and was not “under-employed” by finding work as a personal trainer [at $15 per hour].

A complication

The court found it very difficult to quantify husband’s income due to his indiscriminate use of the firm’s funds to pay for both business and personal expenses.

The court affirmed. finding any valuation error harmless

We cannot conclude in light of the court’s extensive findings that a different business valuation for husband’s firm would lead the court to a different result.

(Mike Frisch)