If one of the parties had denied under oath or affirmation that the parties have lived
apart for the requisite period of time or has alleged that reconciliation is reasonably
probable, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including the circumstances
that gave rise to the filing of the complaint and the prospect of reconciliation,
and shall:
(1) make a finding whether the parties have lived apart for the requisite period of time
or not and whether the reconciliation of the parties to the civil marriage is reasonably
probable or not; or
(2) continue the matter for further hearing not less than 30 or more than 60 days later,
and may suggest to the parties that they seek counseling. At the adjourned hearing,
the court shall make a finding whether the parties have lived apart for the requisite
period of time or not and whether the reconciliation of the parties to the civil marriage
is reasonably probable or not. (Added 1971, No. 238 (Adj. Sess.), § 3, eff. April 6, 1972; amended 2009, No. 3, § 12a, eff. Sept. 1, 2009.)
West v. West, 312 A.2d 920 (Vt. 1973). “The court’s order as to the college education of the children was not limited to their minority. The parties in a divorce action may agree to the provision of support beyond the age of minority, including the provision of a college education, 15 V.”
Braine v. Braine, 243 A.2d 797 (Vt. 1968). “When the parties make their own arrangements, as they are permitted to do by 15 V.S.A. §552, and their stipulations find acceptance with the court hearing the matter, the need for later alteration should have especially explicit exposition.”
Strope v. Strope, 303 A.2d 805 (Vt. 1973). “They are permitted by legislative policy to make their own arrangements in this respect by 15 V.S.A. § 552. In the event there is an agreement, the court is not bound to critically examine a stipulation, without good reason in every case, otherwise the statute would not exist.”
Hudson v. Hudson, 290 A.2d 31 (Vt. 1972). “When the parties make their own arrangements, as they are permitted to do by 15 V.S.A. § 552, and their stipulations find acceptance with the court hearing the matter, the need for later alteration should have especially explicit exposition.”
Harding v. Harding, 346 A.2d 198 (Vt. 1975). “We think it more than a coincidence that this same period of time is that needed for the defendant to complete her studies and become self-supporting, and significant that the alimony payments are limited to this length of time.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.