## Facts

- William Mayville (husband) and Judy Mayville (wife) divorced in 2003 after a 27-year marriage.
- Their divorce order incorporated an agreement requiring husband to pay wife $3,000 per month in spousal maintenance until he turned 65.
- The divorce order also divided husband’s pension plan equally, awarding wife 50% and leaving husband with the remaining 50%.
- At the time of divorce, husband earned about $100,000 per year (and later earned more); wife was disabled and had never been able to work.
- Wife relied on maintenance and Social Security benefits and had continuing medical expenses.
- In April 2009, when husband was 59, IBM terminated his employment through no fault of his own; he received a severance package paying six months at full salary plus benefits.
- After receiving notice of his pending termination, husband filed a petition to modify (and effectively terminate or reduce) maintenance, arguing his job loss was a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances under 15 V.S.A. § 758.
- Husband planned to retire rather than seek new employment.
- The family court found that husband’s income for 2009 remained high due to severance and other sources, and that he made little effort to find new work.
- The family court ordered husband to continue paying $3,000 per month during the severance and unemployment-benefit period, and then to pay $1,500 per month until age 65, when maintenance would end under the original order.
- In calculating the modified award, the family court considered husband’s pension payments (from his share), imputed some earnings to him despite his retirement plan, and considered that his new spouse’s contributions reduced his household expenses.
- Husband appealed, arguing the court overestimated his available income and improperly used his pension income for maintenance after the pension had been divided at divorce.

## Issues

1. Did husband’s layoff and planned retirement establish a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances requiring termination (or a greater reduction) of maintenance under 15 V.S.A. § 758?
2. Did the family court err by treating husband’s pension payments as income for maintenance purposes after the pension had been divided 50–50 in the property award (the “double-dipping” argument)?
3. Did the family court err by imputing additional earning capacity to husband during the period he was receiving (or expected to receive) unemployment benefits?
4. Did the family court improperly consider husband’s new wife’s income or contributions when assessing husband’s ability to pay?
5. Were the family court’s findings and its weighing of expenses and needs (including insurance costs and wife’s finances) clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion?

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the family court’s order.
- The Court upheld the schedule requiring husband to pay $3,000 per month during the severance and unemployment-benefit period, and $1,500 per month thereafter until he reached age 65.
- The Court agreed the family court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there was no qualifying substantial change in circumstances for 2009 and during the unemployment-benefit period, given husband’s income from severance and other sources.
- The Court rejected husband’s “double-dipping” claim on these facts and held the family court could consider husband’s pension payments (from his retained share) as income available for maintenance.
- The Court upheld the family court’s treatment of husband’s employment choice and earning capacity, including the imputation of some earnings where the evidence supported a finding that husband chose not to pursue available work.
- The Court held the family court did not improperly treat the new spouse’s earnings as husband’s income; it permissibly considered how the new spouse’s contributions reduced husband’s expenses and affected his ability to pay.
- The Court concluded the family court’s findings and overall assessment of the parties’ resources, needs, and expenses were supported by the record and fell within its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking maintenance modification under 15 V.S.A. § 758 must show a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to modify maintenance and in setting the amount and duration of any modified award; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- Factual findings in support of a maintenance decision are upheld unless clearly erroneous.
- Pension payments received after divorce may be treated as income when assessing a payor’s ability to pay maintenance, even if the pension was divided as property; the “double-dipping” objection is not an automatic bar and depends on fairness in the particular record.
- A court may evaluate earning capacity and may impute income where a payor voluntarily reduces earnings or chooses not to seek suitable employment.
- A court may consider the economic reality of the payor’s household, including whether a new spouse’s contributions reduce the payor’s living expenses, without treating the new spouse’s income as the payor’s income.

## Conclusion

Mayville v. Mayville affirmed a family court’s partial reduction—but not termination—of long-term maintenance after the husband’s involuntary layoff and decision to retire early, holding that the court acted within its discretion in finding no qualifying change during severance and unemployment benefits, and in calculating ongoing maintenance using the husband’s retained pension payments, earning capacity, and reduced household expenses associated with remarriage.


Mayville v. Mayville, 189 Vt. 1 (2010)