 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Damone v. Damone9/14/2001
each spouse, the work history of each spouse, and the effect plaintiff's employment will have over the next few years on her role as custodian of the children. The court concluded that plaintiff would require rehabilitative maintenance for a period of five years, while she provides after-school care for the children, and that the need for those duties would diminish over time as she secures appropriate employment which will compensate her at a level that will enable her to meet her reasonable needs.
The court then turned to the issue of how much maintenance defendant would pay plaintiff over this period. It examined the current income generated by each party, noted the stability in defendant's monthly income of approximately $2862, and forecast that plaintiff's child-care duties would likely result in a decrease in her income, resulting in monthly income for her of approximately $1591. The court also calculated that after each party used its portion of the settlement proceeds to pay off their respective outstanding debts, the remaining settlement proceeds would be $53,716 for plaintiff and $77,247 for defendant. The court calculated that, based on its distribution of the settlement proceeds and the rate of interest of 4.5% on a one-year U.S. Treasury Bill (as of March 30, 1999), plaintiff could derive $2417 annually, or $201 per month, from her net portion of the settlement proceeds, and defendant could derive $3476, or $290 per month, from his net portion. Adding these monthly imputed interest income figures to the earned income figures above, the court arrived at a total monthly income of $3,152 for defendant and $1,792 for plaintiff. [pc-13-34] From this, the court determined that the appropriate amount of rehabilitative maintenance needed to be paid by defendant to plaintiff in order to maintain the respective households at the standard of living established during the marriage would be $500 per month.
I.
We first address defendant's contention that the family court abused its discretion by refusing to honor the parties' agreement on how to distribute the personal injury settlement proceeds. The parties executed an agreement on June 8, 1998, approximately six months after their separation and three months after plaintiff filed the complaint for divorce, which reads as follows:
In regards to a potential settlement in the case of Damone v. Lord, Docket No.: S269-95 Wrc Both Phillip and Robin Damone agree that should an agreement for settlement be reached on this date at the scheduled mediation the proceeds shall be divided as follows:
After all legal fees, costs, expenses and $3,000.00 owed to James Damone are paid, Robin Damone shall receive 17 ½ % of the net amount. Phillip Damone shall receive 82 ½ % of the net amount.
While the agreement does not refer to their pending divorce, it does specifically provide for the distribution of the settlement proceeds. The court acknowledged the agreement, if followed, would have resulted in a distribution of $26,270.32 to plaintiff and $123,845.79 to defendant.
The court discussed three possible options for distribution of the net personal injury settlement proceeds. First, it considered dividing the settlement equally between the parties. It rejected this approach as inappropriate in this case since, it acknowledged, the primary purpose of the settlement proceeds was to compensate defendant for his past and future pain and suffering. The court also rejected this approach because it was "mindful of the parties' written agreement concerning the settlement of the lawsuit."
Second, the court considered honoring the parties' agreement. The court rejected this approach as we
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|