Wood v. Wood: Vermont Reaffirms the “Divisible Divorce” Doctrine and the Use of Disability Benefits when Fixing Spousal Maintenance

1. Introduction

Wood v. Wood, 2025 VT ___ (June 6, 2025), is a Vermont Supreme Court decision that brings two doctrinal lines into sharp, modern relief:

Divisible Divorce & Full Faith and Credit: It re-emphasises that a foreign divorce decree entered without personal jurisdiction over the non-resident spouse is effective only as to marital status; ancillary issues such as property division and spousal maintenance remain open elsewhere.
Disability Benefits as Income: It confirms that veterans’ disability compensation, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and municipal pensions may be considered income when calculating spousal maintenance, even though those streams might be protected from direct attachment or garnishment.

The case arose after Tammy Wood (“Wife”) initiated divorce proceedings in Vermont. Her husband, Russell Wood (“Husband”), later filed for divorce in Louisiana, where the marriage was ultimately dissolved. When the Vermont Family Division proceeded to divide property and award maintenance, Husband contested jurisdiction and the inclusion of his disability-related benefits in the maintenance calculus.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Sitting as a three-justice panel, the Vermont Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Family Division’s orders:

Jurisdiction: The Louisiana decree ended the marriage but, lacking personal jurisdiction over Wife, did not preclude Vermont from deciding maintenance and property division.
Maintenance Award: $1,500 per month for four years, plus $72,000 in arrears payable at $750 per month, was upheld.
Income Sources: The lower court properly treated Husband’s municipal pension, veterans’ disability benefits, and SSDI as available income for maintenance purposes. Mansell v. Mansell’s limitation on property division of waived military retirement pay did not bar their consideration as income.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Poston v. Poston, 160 Vt. 1 (1993) — Vermont’s leading “divisible divorce” decision. Held that without personal jurisdiction, a foreign decree is binding only as to marital status.
Grant v. Grant, 136 Vt. 9 (1978) — Established that when a foreign court does have personal jurisdiction and considers alimony, res judicata bars later litigation in Vermont. Distinguished here because the Louisiana court never reached maintenance.
Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942) — Classic Full Faith and Credit case validating domiciliary states’ authority to dissolve marriages.
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) & International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) — Minimum-contacts framework for personal jurisdiction.
Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989) — Prohibits states from dividing waived military retirement pay, but does not govern maintenance.
Repash v. Repash, 148 Vt. 70 (1987) & Cote v. Cote, 2011 VT 92 — Vermont precedents allowing disability benefits to be counted as income for support.
Conley v. Crisafulli, 2010 VT 38 — Standard of review for motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. Jurisdictional Analysis

The Court accepted that Louisiana had in rem (status) jurisdiction because Husband was domiciled there.
However, to adjudicate financial matters a court needs in personam jurisdiction over both spouses. Wife had no “minimum contacts” with Louisiana—she had left 18 months earlier, owned no property there, and appeared solely to object to jurisdiction.
Because Louisiana lacked personal jurisdiction, its decree carried no res judicata effect on maintenance or property, so Vermont could proceed.
Grant v. Grant was distinguished: there both spouses submitted to Virgin Islands jurisdiction and the alimony question was explicitly reserved—conditions absent here.

B. Maintenance Calculation

Mansell only bars treating waived retired pay as divisible marital property; it says nothing about treating disability benefits as income to decide maintenance. Vermont precedent (Repash, Cote) already allowed this.
Garnishment exemptions (e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 407 for SSDI; 24 V.S.A. § 5066 for municipal pensions) protect from direct attachment, not from being considered in setting the amount of maintenance.
The lower court thus correctly included the benefits in Husband’s income stream when setting the $1,500 monthly obligation.

3.3 Impact

Although Wood v. Wood largely reaffirms existing law, its practical significance is notable:

Clarity on Cross-State Divorces. Family lawyers can now cite a 2025 Vermont Supreme Court case — not merely Poston (1993) — for the proposition that foreign status divorces do not bar Vermont from deciding ancillary relief absent personal jurisdiction.
Disability-Benefit Income Stream. Parties relying heavily on SSDI, veterans’ compensation, or municipal pensions should be aware these funds remain fully “countable” as income in maintenance awards even if they are shielded from garnishment.
Strategic Forum Decisions. The decision signals that filing in a state lacking jurisdiction over one’s adversary is unlikely to foreclose ancillary claims elsewhere, discouraging tactical “forum shopping” for quick dissolutions.
Procedural Guidance. The Court underscores that failure to promptly raise jurisdictional arguments—or to furnish jurisdictional facts—may doom later challenges.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Divisible Divorce: Think of divorce as a two-part package. Part 1 dissolves the marriage (status). Part 2 handles money, property, custody, etc. If a court can only lawfully open Part 1, Part 2 can be decided elsewhere.
Full Faith and Credit: States must respect the valid judgments of other states. But a judgment is “valid” on an issue only if the issuing court had authority over that issue.
Personal vs. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court’s power to hear a type of case. Personal jurisdiction is its power over the people involved. You need both to decide money matters between spouses.
Military Retirement vs. Veterans’ Disability Pay: Military retirement pay is subject to property division; disability pay is not. Yet both are income when a court decides how much support a spouse can pay.
Garnishment vs. Income Consideration: An asset may be protected from being seized directly (garnished) but still count when the court measures ability to pay.

5. Conclusion

Wood v. Wood strengthens Vermont’s adherence to the “divisible divorce” doctrine and removes any lingering ambiguity about whether disability-related benefits can be considered income for maintenance. By affirming the Family Division’s jurisdiction and methodology, the Supreme Court not only resolved the Woods’ dispute but also delivered a concise tutorial for practitioners confronting multi-state divorces and complex benefit streams. Future litigants should expect Vermont courts to:

Ignore foreign decrees on property or support when the issuing forum lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse.
Include virtually all forms of cash-flow—pensions, SSDI, veterans’ disability—in the maintenance calculus, even if those benefits cannot later be garnished dollar-for-dollar.
Penalise delayed or unsupported jurisdictional objections.

In sum, the decision fortifies equitable relief for non-resident spouses and warns would-be forum shoppers that status divorces without personal jurisdiction offer, at best, a partial solution.