Background
Husband appealed a final divorce order entered after hearings in May and August 2025. The parties married in 1983 and have three adult children. Wife had been a homemaker and homeschooled the children from 1989 to 2005, then worked outside the home. At the time of trial, wife was executive director of Maynard House, a medical-patient lodging facility, earning approximately $74,000 per year. Husband worked as a civil engineer for Pathways Consulting, LLC, earning $76,921 annually. The parties’ combined marital assets exceeded $3 million and included substantial real estate holdings, interests in multiple family-held businesses (T&M Associates, River Bank Holdings LLC, and Pathways Consulting LLC), and other property.
The trial court awarded wife permanent spousal maintenance of $1,500 per month, based on findings that she earned $4,950 monthly and had total monthly expenses of $6,779. The court also divided property, awarding wife the marital home and certain assets while awarding husband his interest in the family businesses, including wife’s 50% interest in Pathways Consulting LLC. Husband challenged both awards on appeal.
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the maintenance award and remanded the case because the trial court committed clear error in calculating wife’s monthly income. Wife’s actual paystubs from June and July 2024 showed biweekly income of $3,115.39 plus $230.77 in health stipends—totaling approximately $74,000 annually—yet the trial court relied on a figure of $4,950 per month derived from wife’s outdated prior employment. The trial court failed to resolve inconsistencies between wife’s financial affidavit (which she acknowledged had not been updated to reflect current employment and benefits) and her current paystubs.
The court held that because the maintenance award rested on this clearly erroneous factual premise regarding wife’s income, reversal was required. The court also vacated the property division award and remanded both for additional proceedings, recognizing that maintenance and property awards are interconnected and the trial court should have opportunity to revise the property distribution if necessary in light of the corrected income finding. The court emphasized that while trial courts have broad discretion in family law matters, that discretion cannot rest on factual findings that lack reasonable and credible evidentiary support.