Roddy v. Roddy
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the Court
Amestoy, CJ.
Mother appeals the family court’s denial of her request to establish a “maintenance supplement” under 15 V.S.A. § 661, to be paid by her former husband for the benefit of the parties’ children. We affirm the family court’s ruling because mother was unable to satisfy the threshold requirement of showing a “real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances” since the time of the parties’ original divorce and child support order.
The parties obtained an order and decree of divorce on June 30, 1993, under which mother was granted legal and physical parental rights and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Berlin Convalescent Center, Inc. v. StonemanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1992
- Emmons v. EmmonsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1982
- In Re R.S. Audley, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1989
- Viskup v. ViskupSupreme Court of Vermont · 1988
- B & E CORPORATION v. BesserySupreme Court of Vermont · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Murphy v. Stowe Club HighlandsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
- Gallipo v. City of RutlandSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
- In re G.T.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2000
- O'CONNELL v. CorcoranNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
- Lamare v. North Country Animal LeagueSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.