Case Title: Williams v. Williams

Citation: 

Docket Number: 91-452

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-452


 Carlton Williams                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Windham Family Court

 Bruce B. Williams                            April Term, 1992



 Robert Grussing III, J.

 Gwendolyn W. Harris of McCarty Law Offices, Brattleboro, for plaintiff-
 appellee

 Thomas W. Costello, Brattleboro, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:   Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      GIBSON, J.   Defendant husband appeals from a divorce judgment,
 contesting the Windham Family Court's award of the marital property and its
 determination of the parties' parental rights and responsibilities.  We
 reverse the property award.
      The parties were married in 1984 and separated in 1989.  A daughter was
 born to the parties in 1986.  During the marriage, plaintiff was employed as
 an educator, and defendant was a bookkeeper and office manager until late
 1988, when he became a self-employed film maker and graphic artist.  The
 parties contributed equally to the purchase of their marital home in
 Townshend, which was acquired for $64,000.  After its acquisition, defendant
 contributed additionally to the value of the home, which has a present net
 equity of $115,000.
      The trial court granted the divorce and awarded primary physical and
 legal responsibility for the child to plaintiff, subject to defendant's
 rights of visitation, with defendant to pay temporary support of $84 per
 week pending further hearing before a magistrate.  The court awarded the
 marital home to plaintiff, subject to a $25,000 lien payable to defendant
 upon remarriage of plaintiff, or sale of the property, or when their
 daughter becomes eighteen years of age, whichever should first occur.  The
 court also awarded plaintiff a ring that defendant had given her, which
 defendant asserted was a family heirloom.  The present appeal followed.
      Defendant argues first that the trial court erred in failing to grant
 his request for oral argument or an opportunity to present evidence on his
 post-trial motions, and in failing to disclose the basis for its decision on
 these requests.  He contends that in Goshy v. Morey, 149 Vt. 93,