Case Title: Brinckerhoff v. Brinckerhoff

Citation: 179 Vt. 532, 2005 VT 75, 889 A.2d 701

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Brinckerhoff v. Brinckerhoff (2003-284); 179 Vt. 532; 889 A.2d 701

2005 VT 75

[Filed 15-Jul-2005]

Motion for Reargument Denied 18-Aug-2005]

[Motions for Reconsideration Denied 1-Sep & 27-Sep-2005]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 75

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-284

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2004

  Patrice M. Brinckerhoff	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Chittenden Family Court
                                       }	
  Robert M. Brinckerhoff	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 254-3-00 CnDm

                                                Trial Judge: Brian L. Burgess

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Husband appeals from a family court order confirming an
  arbitration award for distribution of the marital estate and spousal
  maintenance in a divorce proceeding, and from a related order denying a
  motion to modify the award.  Husband contends the court erred because the
  arbitrators exceeded their authority, and violated his constitutional
  rights, by: (1) relying on fault as a basis for dividing the marital
  estate; (2) awarding spousal maintenance and dividing the property contrary
  to the terms of the arbitration agreement and the parties' pleadings; (3)
  treating the parties' inheritances in a disparate manner; and (4) failing
  to apply a coverture fraction to certain marital assets.  We affirm.  

       ¶  2.  The parties were married in 1975, and had two children who
  were both over the age of majority at the time of these proceedings. 
  Husband had worked throughout the marriage, and continued to work, as a
  broker with Merrill Lynch, earning a considerable income and compiling
  several substantial investment and retirement accounts. Wife worked
  principally as a homemaker.  Both parties had also acquired property
  through inheritance. Their combined wealth totaled about $4 million.      

       ¶  3.  Wife commenced a divorce action in 2000. In April 2001, the
  parties entered into an "Agreement to Submit Divorce to
  Mediation/Arbitration."  Pursuant to the agreement, a panel of three
  arbitrators heard evidence on the first day of the arbitration hearing,
  adjourned for a mediation session before one of the panel members on the
  second day, and reconvened to hear further evidence on the third day. (FN1)  
  A principal focus of dispute at the hearing was the value and legal status
  of several investment accounts and inheritances, with each side presenting
  substantial evidence, including expert testimony. On June 15, 2001, the
  panel issued a written decision containing extensive findings of fact and
  conclusions of law. The panel awarded spousal maintenance to wife of
  $10,000 per month for six months, increasing to $12,000 per month (with
  adjustments for inflation) until she reached the age of sixty-five
  (approximately twenty years), and awarded wife sixty percent and husband
  forty percent of the marital assets.  

       ¶  4.  Following the panel's decision, husband filed a succession of
  motions to modify or vacate the award.  The panel issued a slightly amended
  arbitration decision in response to the first motion in November 2001, and
  denied a second motion in February 2002.  Wife then filed a motion in
  family court to confirm the award and husband moved to modify or vacate. 
  See 12 V.S.A. § 5676 (authorizing application of party to confirm, modify,
  or vacate arbitration award).  In April  2002, the court issued a written
  decision, granting wife's motion and denying husband's.  In October,  after
  several additional procedural steps, the court confirmed a final
  arbitration award, and denied husband's motion to amend under V.R.C.P.
  59(e).  Husband then filed an additional motion to amend the judgment under
  V.R.C.P. 59(e), or for relief from judgment under V.R.C.P. 60(b), which the
  court denied in May 2003.  Husband has appealed the court's orders
  confirming the final arbitration award and denying his motion to amend.  

       ¶  5.  We note at the outset that our review is limited.  "Vermont
  has a strong tradition of upholding arbitration awards whenever possible." 
  R.E. Bean Constr. Co. v. Middlebury Assocs., 139 Vt. 200, 204,