Brinckerhoff v. Brinckerhoff

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed family court orders confirming an arbitration award distributing the marital estate and awarding spousal maintenance in a divorce proceeding. The court held that the husband failed to show that the arbitrators exceeded their authority, violated due process or equal protection, or committed a statutory basis for modifying or vacating the award.

Holdings

1. The arbitrators did not exceed their authority by considering fault because the agreement required them to follow Vermont law, and Vermont law permits consideration of the parties' respective merits, including fault, in dividing marital property.
2. The evidence concerning husband's extramarital affairs was within the scope of the arbitration agreement because the agreement did not require all issues or evidence to be presented on the first day and expressly permitted presentation of evidence and argument on the third day.
3. The award of maintenance until wife reached age sixty-five did not exceed the arbitrators' authority merely because wife had requested maintenance for fifteen years or until age sixty.
4. Claims that the arbitrators disregarded evidence, mischaracterized assets, or made errors of fact or law were impermissible attacks on the merits and did not establish a statutory basis for vacating or modifying the award.
5. The family court properly denied relief under V.R.C.P. 59(e) and 60(b) because the asserted stock-market changes and health deterioration did not constitute newly discovered evidence warranting modification of the final property division.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the arbitrators exceeded their authority by considering marital fault in dividing the marital estate.
2. Whether the arbitration agreement limited the arbitrators to evidence presented on the first hearing day or to the parties' specific maintenance and property-division proposals.
3. Whether the arbitrators' property division and spousal-maintenance award constituted an impermissible attackable merits determination rather than a statutory ground for vacatur or modification.
4. Whether the arbitrators erred by treating certain assets as deferred compensation rather than retirement accounts and by declining to apply a coverture fraction.
5. Whether the family court properly denied husband's motions to amend the judgment or obtain relief based on changed circumstances or newly discovered evidence.
6. Whether the arbitrators' treatment of inheritances and investment accounts violated husband's due process or equal protection rights.

Disposition

affirmed