Equitable Offsetting of Spousal Maintenance with Property Awards in Vermont Divorce Law

Introduction

This commentary examines the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision in Christian Borgesen v. Debra Borgesen, decided May 9, 2025. The case arose from a long-term marriage of over twenty-five years, culminating in divorce proceedings in Windham Unit Family Division, Superior Court (Case No. 23-DM-01709). The primary issues on appeal were the trial court’s division of the marital estate and its award of spousal maintenance under 15 V.S.A. § 752. Christian Borgesen (“Husband”), age 63, challenged the award of $3,216.58 per month for 137 months to Debra Borgesen (“Wife”), age 60, and the allocation of home equity and retirement assets in lieu of maintenance during Husband’s post-retirement period. The Supreme Court affirmed, reinforcing key principles of equitable distribution and the trial court’s broad discretion in crafting relief tailored to the parties’ retirement needs.

Summary of the Judgment

The Vermont Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s final divorce order. It upheld:

The award of spousal maintenance to Wife at $3,216.58 per month from December 2024 to June 1, 2027.
The division of marital assets: Wife retains the home equity (market value $450,000) and assumes the mortgage; Wife’s pre- and post-marriage retirement accounts; and a money market account. Husband retains his retirement accounts and assumes other debts.
The offsetting of nine years and ten months of potential maintenance (value $302,358.52) through property awarded to Wife, achieving an equal division of the remaining marital estate.

The court found no abuse of discretion in recognizing Wife’s nonmonetary contributions (childcare, support of Husband’s career) or in its calculation of Wife’s reasonable needs versus Husband’s ability to pay.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Chaker v. Chaker, 155 Vt. 20 (1990): Established broad discretion for trial courts to award maintenance when a spouse lacks sufficient income or property to meet reasonable needs at the marital standard of living.
Semprebon v. Semprebon, 157 Vt. 209 (1991): Clarified that appellate courts defer to trial findings unless no credible evidence supports them.
Mullin v. Phelps, 162 Vt. 250 (1994): Confirmed deference to the finder of fact on credibility and weight of evidence.
Chilkott v. Chilkott, 158 Vt. 193 (1992): Articulated that property division must be equitable rather than mathematically exact.
Field v. Field, 139 Vt. 242 (1981) and Lalumiere v. Lalumiere, 149 Vt. 469 (1988): Demonstrated the trial court’s responsibility to consider all statutory factors and the appellate standard for review.
Meyncke v. Meyncke, 2009 VT 84 (mem.): Reiterated that disagreement with the trial court’s factual findings does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied 15 V.S.A. § 752(a)(1)–(2) to find that Wife lacked sufficient income to meet her reasonable needs at the marital standard of living and could not support herself through appropriate employment. Once those grounds were established, the trial court’s determination of amount and duration of maintenance was reviewed for abuse of discretion. Key elements of the court’s reasoning included:

Income Disparity: Husband’s annual compensation ($161,202.72 plus $25,000 bonus) was more than double Wife’s salary ($67,058.88).
Contributions to Marriage: Wife’s primary caregiving and career sacrifices facilitated Husband’s career advancement and earning capacity.
Retirement Planning: The court tailored its award to allow both parties to retire on equal financial footing, offsetting post-retirement maintenance with property allocation.
Expense Review: Husband’s discretionary spending findings (vehicles, entertainment, retirement savings) demonstrated his ability to fund maintenance.
Property in Lieu: Awarding Wife home equity and certain retirement assets offset Husband’s maintenance obligation after June 1, 2027, equitably dividing the marital estate.

Impact

This decision underscores several important developments in Vermont family law:

Reinforcement of the trial court’s broad discretion in maintenance and property division, emphasizing deference on appeal.
Validation of property-in-lieu offsets to balance maintenance obligations and secure equitable retirement outcomes.
Affirmation of nonmonetary contributions (childcare, support of a spouse’s career) as critical factors in awarding both maintenance and property.
Guidance on scrutinizing a paying spouse’s lifestyle expenditures to assess ability to pay maintenance.

Future litigants and trial courts can rely on this precedent to structure relief that considers both marital contributions and the long-term fiscal security of both parties.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Spousal Maintenance: Ongoing payments from one ex-spouse to another to ensure the recipient can maintain a lifestyle similar to that enjoyed during the marriage.
Equitable Division: Not necessarily 50/50, but fair considering duration of marriage, contributions (monetary and nonmonetary), earning capacity, and retirement needs.
Property in Lieu of Maintenance: Awarding assets instead of cash payments to offset future maintenance obligations, often used when a paying spouse’s ability diminishes (e.g., at retirement).
Broad Discretion Standard: Appellate courts will not overturn a trial court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion or a factual finding unsupported by credible evidence.
Reasonable Needs: Expenses necessary for basic living at the marital standard, including housing, healthcare, transportation, and modest extras—distinct from discretionary or luxury items.

Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court’s decision in Christian Borgesen v. Debra Borgesen crystallizes the principle that trial courts have broad, equitable discretion to combine spousal maintenance with property-in-lieu awards. By thoroughly assessing income disparities, contributions to the marriage, and retirement planning needs, the court ensured both parties could retire on comparable financial terms. This ruling provides clear guidance for future divorce judgments, affirming that maintenance orders and property distribution must be tailored together to achieve a fair, sustainable post-marital outcome.