“Rule 60(b) Motions Do Not Suspend Compliance” — Gaines v. Gaines and the Vermont Supreme Court’s Clarification on Timeliness, Trust Assets, and Contempt

Introduction

Cindy Gaines v. Edmund Gaines, III, 2025 VT ___, arose from post-judgment disputes following the parties’ 2022 stipulated divorce. After repeatedly failing to pay spousal maintenance and to discharge a mortgage as agreed, Husband sought relief from the divorce decree under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) while Wife pursued enforcement and contempt orders. The Family Division denied Husband’s second Rule 60(b) motion, found him in contempt, and imposed purge conditions. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, issuing a significant clarification that:

a pending or renewed Rule 60(b) motion does not stay or excuse compliance with a final divorce order unless a stay is separately obtained, and
where a party is a discretionary beneficiary of a trust that in fact pays personal expenses, the court may treat the trust as a resource demonstrating present ability to pay support and purge contempt.

These pronouncements tighten Vermont’s procedural and substantive standards in post-decree litigation, with particular relevance to affluent obligors relying on spendthrift or discretionary trusts to shield assets.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly:

Denied Husband’s July 2024 Rule 60(b) motion as untimely (fraud claims must be brought within one year of judgment) and insufficiently particularized.
Found Husband in contempt for willfully violating support and mortgage-discharge obligations where evidence showed monthly income of $6,557.85 and unfettered access to a family trust that paid $11,000 per month toward his expenses and maintained approximately $600,000 in liquid assets.
Rejected Husband’s arguments that filing a Rule 60(b) motion operated as a de facto stay of enforcement or that trust restrictions negated his present ability to pay.

The Court affirmed the purge order requiring Husband to satisfy arrearages within sixty days and to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Wilson v. Wilson, 2011 VT 133
– Reaffirmed that post-judgment modification of property division is limited to Rule 60(b) grounds such as fraud or coercion. The Court used Wilson to underscore the narrow path Husband had—and failed—to follow.
Olio v. Olio, 2012 VT 44
– Explicitly applies the one-year limitation to fraud-based Rule 60(b)(3) motions. This precedent was dispositive of Husband’s timeliness problem.
Steele v. Steele, 142 Vt. 112 (1982)
– Establishes that to defend against a contempt allegation, the obligor must prove both lack of ability and lack of contumacious intent. The Family Division applied Steele to place the burden squarely on Husband.
Russell v. Armitage, 166 Vt. 392 (1997)
– Clarifies that “inability to pay” is an affirmative defense, again burdening the obligor. The Supreme Court cited it to validate the trial court’s allocation of proof.
Kneebinding, Inc. v. Howell, 2020 VT 99
– Articulates the bar against collateral attacks on the validity of an order during contempt proceedings. This muted Husband’s assertion that the underlying decree was invalid.
Mayo v. Mayo, 173 Vt. 459 (2001)
– Sets the substantial-evidence standard for appellate review of contempt findings. The Court relied on it in deferring to the trial court’s credibility assessments.

Legal Reasoning

Timeliness and Particularity under Rule 60(b)
Fraud-based challenges must be filed within 12 months. Husband’s renewed motion came more than two years after the decree and was therefore untimely. Even if timely, Rule 60(b)(3) requires fraud allegations to be pleaded with specificity—facts, dates, documents—none of which were offered.
No Automatic Stay from Rule 60(b) Filing
The Court emphasized that a Rule 60(b) motion does not pause enforceability. A stay must be sought under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 or V.R.C.P. 62. Husband sought neither.
Ability to Pay and Trust Resources
Contempt requires present ability to comply. The court pierced the practical veil of Husband’s discretionary trust: evidence showed routine disbursements on request, a $600,000 investment account, and monthly draws of $11,000. This, coupled with earned income, sufficed to find ability to pay even if trust language appeared restrictive.
Burdens of Proof
Wife bore the initial burden to show a valid order and non-compliance; Husband then bore the burden to show inability. His bare assertions, unaccompanied by affidavits or bank statements despite repeated court directives, were inadequate.

Impact on Future Litigation

Deterrence of Tactical Rule 60(b) Motions: Parties can no longer assume that filing repetitive or belated Rule 60(b) motions will delay enforcement. Litigation tactics aimed at “running out the clock” on support obligations risk immediate contempt findings.
Expanded Reach to Trust Assets: Family courts may scrutinize discretionary trusts more aggressively when assessing ability to pay. Beneficiaries with practical access to trust funds will face higher hurdles in claiming indigency.
Procedural Rigor in Post-Decree Practice: The decision underscores strict compliance with affidavit requirements in support-modification or relief motions. Bare-bones filings face swift denial.
Predictability in Enforcement: By reiterating that collateral attacks are barred during contempt proceedings, the Court bolsters the finality of judgments and encourages timely appeals.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 60(b) Motion: A request asking the trial court to relieve a party from a final judgment for specific reasons (e.g., mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud). Think of it as an attempt to “reopen” a closed case.
Rule 60(b)(3) — Fraud: Allows relief if the opposing party committed fraud during litigation, but the motion must be filed within one year.
Contempt: When a party willfully disobeys a court order. Civil contempt is remedial—its purpose is to compel compliance, not punish.
Purge Condition: A specific act (e.g., paying arrears) the contemnor must perform to “purge” the contempt and avoid sanctions.
Present Ability to Pay: Whether the obligor, considering all available resources, can meet the ordered payment now. It is not enough to show difficulty; they must show impossibility.
Discretionary Trust: A trust in which the trustee decides if and when to distribute funds to beneficiaries. Courts may still treat such funds as reachable if distributions are in fact routinely made.

Conclusion

Gaines v. Gaines crystallizes two important Vermont principles: (1) the unforgiving one-year window and particularity requirement for fraud-based Rule 60(b) motions, and (2) the non-suspensive nature of such motions on ongoing obligations. The Court’s willingness to look beyond formal trust language to real-world access places affluent obligors on notice that asset-shielding strategies will be closely examined. Together, these holdings reinforce the finality of divorce decrees, encourage prompt and precise litigation conduct, and strengthen enforcement mechanisms in Vermont family law.