Hess v. Hess

Supreme Court of Vermont

Hess v. Hess

402 A.2d 750, 137 Vt. 290, 1979 Vt. LEXIS 971

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJune 5, 1979

DocketNo. 211-78

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 402 A.2d 750 (Hess v. Hess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hess v. Hess, 402 A.2d 750, 137 Vt. 290, 1979 Vt. LEXIS 971 (Vt. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After hearing plaintiff’s motion for contempt in her divorce action, the trial court made findings and an order, denying the motion for contempt but ordering defendant to make payments totalling $7,025 over a nine month period. It reaffirmed other provisions of the previous amended order.

From the record before us, the trial court did not act upon defendant’s seasonable request for additional findings, largely upon his claim that the parties had arrived at a new agreement waiving some of the payments in question. Without those findings, equitable disposition of the substantial issues presented is impossible. We note that defendant’s claim for modification, urged here, was not formally presented below. The inconsistencies between denial of contempt and an order of payment, an apparent difference between amounts found and totals carried into the judgment order, plus the inadequacies of the findings, compel a reversal and remand for new hearing, with leave for defendant to present a motion for modification, should he desire to have that issue also adjudicated.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

After hearing plaintiff’s motion for contempt in her divorce action, the trial court made findings and an order, denying the motion for contempt but ordering defendant to make payments totalling $7,025 over a nine month period. It reaffirmed other provisions of the previous amended order.

From the record before us, the trial court did not act upon defendant’s seasonable request for additional findings, largely upon his claim that the parties had arrived at a new agreement waiving some of the payments in question. Without those findings, equitable disposition of the substantial issues presented is impossible. We note that defendant’s claim for modification, urged here, was not formally presented below. The inconsistencies between denial of contempt and an order of payment, an apparent difference between amounts found and totals carried into the judgment order, plus the inadequacies of the findings, compel a reversal and remand for new hearing, with leave for defendant to present a motion for modification, should he desire to have that issue also adjudicated.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 A.2d 750, 137 Vt. 290, 1979 Vt. LEXIS 971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hess-v-hess-vt-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack