the court erroneously exercises its discretion, or exercises it “upon unfounded considerations or to an extent clearly unreasonable in light of the evidence”). ¶ 27. In affirming the family court decision, we stress what is not covered by this opinion. Wife, recipient spouse, appealed only the decision to find changed circumstances and not the modification decision reached by the family court once it found changed circumstances. Thus, we have not reviewed the amount of the reduction with respect to the improvement of wife’s financial situation. Nor have we determined whether part of the original maintenance award in this case was compensatory. If it was, we would question the family court’s authority to terminate that part of the maintenance award. See id. at 39-40, 819 A.2d at 690 (<HOLDING>); Stickney v. Stickney, 170 Vt. 547, 549, 742
recognizing appropriateness of compensatory education award and holding that plaintiff was entitled to recover compensatory education if she prevailed in her claim that she was denied a fape for several years holding that a trial court has broad discretion to modify a spousal maintenance award holding that denial of petition for modification of maintenance was proper when the parties agreement prohibited modification of maintenance recognizing that recipient spouses improved financial security will support modification of maintenance award recognizing that family court cannot eliminate compensatory part of maintenance award