Wood v. Clement

Supreme Court of Vermont

Wood v. Clement

437 A.2d 1112, 140 Vt. 282, 1981 Vt. LEXIS 613

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedNovember 3, 1981

DocketNo. 358-80

StatusPublished

This text of 437 A.2d 1112 (Wood v. Clement) 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

Wood v. Clement, 437 A.2d 1112, 140 Vt. 282, 1981 Vt. LEXIS 613 (Vt. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Billings, J.

This is an appeal from an action for child support brought under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1968 (RURESA), 15 V.S.A. §§ 385-428. The parties were divorced in New Hampshire on January 17, 1975. The plaintiff, Robert Bruce Wood, was granted [283]*283custody of their children, and the defendant, Anne Marie Clement, was ordered to pay thirty-five dollars per week for their support. Thereafter, the defendant moved to Vermont and became delinquent in her support payments. The plaintiff brought this RURESA action to enforce the divorce decree. In defense of the suit, the defendant offered evidence that her financial situation had changed since the time of the divorce, and she could no longer afford to make the support payments as ordered. The trial judge found that the defendant did not have the means to make the payments, but he ordered her to make them anyway, holding that Bushway v. Riendeau, 137 Vt. 455, 407 A.2d 178 (1979), required him to conform his order to the divorce decree of the out-of-state court regardless of the circumstances. From this decision the defendant appeals.

The facts and issue in this case are identical to McEvily v. McEvily, 140 Vt. 279, 437 A.2d 1110 (1981), decided today. That case held that Bushway does not control where the defendant’s inability to pay is the issue in a RURESA proceeding. The trial court may reduce support payments to reflect changed conditions and the actual ability of the defendant to pay.

Reversed and remanded for a hearing consistent with the views expressed herein.

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

Billings, J.

This is an appeal from an action for child support brought under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1968 (RURESA), 15 V.S.A. §§ 385-428. The parties were divorced in New Hampshire on January 17, 1975. The plaintiff, Robert Bruce Wood, was granted [283]*283custody of their children, and the defendant, Anne Marie Clement, was ordered to pay thirty-five dollars per week for their support. Thereafter, the defendant moved to Vermont and became delinquent in her support payments. The plaintiff brought this RURESA action to enforce the divorce decree. In defense of the suit, the defendant offered evidence that her financial situation had changed since the time of the divorce, and she could no longer afford to make the support payments as ordered. The trial judge found that the defendant did not have the means to make the payments, but he ordered her to make them anyway, holding that Bushway v. Riendeau, 137 Vt. 455, 407 A.2d 178 (1979), required him to conform his order to the divorce decree of the out-of-state court regardless of the circumstances. From this decision the defendant appeals.

The facts and issue in this case are identical to McEvily v. McEvily, 140 Vt. 279, 437 A.2d 1110 (1981), decided today. That case held that Bushway does not control where the defendant’s inability to pay is the issue in a RURESA proceeding. The trial court may reduce support payments to reflect changed conditions and the actual ability of the defendant to pay.

Reversed and remanded for a hearing consistent with the views expressed herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 A.2d 1112, 140 Vt. 282, 1981 Vt. LEXIS 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-clement-vt-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack