Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reviews a divorce judgment concerning parent-child contact, division of a substantial marital estate, nominal maintenance, attorney’s fees, and alleged judicial bias. The court affirms the parent-child contact order, nominal maintenance award, and partial attorney’s-fee award, but reverses and remands the property award because the trial court’s findings did not support treating certain expenditures as dissipated marital assets.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the family court abused its discretion in reducing husband's parent-child contact from the temporary schedule.
- Whether the family court could include expenditures transferred from the marital estate as assets available to husband under the dissipation doctrine.
- Whether the family court's findings supported treating husband's loans and payment to his secretary as dissipated marital assets.
- Whether the family court abused its discretion in awarding wife approximately 57 percent of the marital estate.
- Whether the family court's rulings demonstrated judicial bias.
- Whether the family court properly awarded wife nominal maintenance of one dollar per year.
- Whether the family court abused its discretion in awarding wife litigation expenses.
Holdings
- The family court did not abuse its discretion by adopting a final parent-child-contact schedule returning the child to wife's home on Sunday afternoon rather than Monday morning.
- A trial court may return property or funds transferred from the marital estate to the marital estate for equitable distribution when the expenditures involved financial misconduct, such as intentional waste or selfish financial impropriety, coupled with a purpose unrelated to the marriage.
- The family court erred by adding approximately $250,000 to the marital estate and awarding the nonexistent asset to husband because it made no findings supporting financial misconduct, intentional waste, selfish financial impropriety, or the prudence and purpose of the expenditures.
- The approximately 57-percent award to wife was within the family court's broad discretion, but the property award as a whole had to be reversed and remanded because the marital estate was improperly calculated.
- The award of nominal maintenance of one dollar per year was within the family court's discretion.
- The record did not establish judicial bias; adverse rulings and isolated unfavorable remarks were insufficient.
- The family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding wife a partial amount of attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
Key quotations
“Thus, the answer to our first question is that the trial court could return the disputed assets to the marital estate for purposes of equitable distribution if it found the expenditures involved financial misconduct, such as intentional waste or selfish financial impropriety, coupled with a purpose unrelated to the marriage.” (¶ 20)
“We conclude that the dissipation doctrine is broad enough to encompass the kinds of expenditures made here, but the findings do not support the application of that doctrine in this case.” (¶ 25)
“We have held that “a court may award maintenance in a nominal amount, to preserve the court’s ability to modify the award later in the event of a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances.”” (¶ 33)
Factual background
The parties married in 1978, separated in 2006, and had five children, one of whom was a minor during the proceedings. Wife was a homemaker and primary caregiver, while husband accumulated substantial assets through business and entrepreneurial activities. The marital estate was valued at approximately nine million dollars and included closely held businesses and substantial real estate. During the divorce, husband made loans and a payment to his secretary from marital funds; the family court treated approximately $250,000 of those expenditures as an asset available to husband in distributing the estate, although it made no findings of financial misconduct, intentional waste, or the prudence and purpose of the expenditures.
Procedural history
After a lengthy divorce proceeding involving parental rights and responsibilities and a substantial marital estate, the family court issued a final order in December 2011. The court awarded wife sole parental rights and responsibilities over the parties' youngest child, divided the marital estate approximately 57 percent to wife and 43 percent to husband, awarded wife nominal maintenance of one dollar per year, and awarded litigation expenses. The family court denied husband's motions for a new trial and to amend the findings and judgment. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed the parent-child-contact order, maintenance award, and attorney's-fee award, but reversed and remanded the marital-property award.
Remand instructions
Reverse the marital-property award and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion, including reconsideration of the marital estate and property distribution without unsupported additions for alleged dissipated expenditures. The parent-child-contact order, nominal maintenance award, and attorney's-fee award were affirmed.