Case Title: Lambert v. Beede

Citation: 175 Vt. 610, 2003 VT 75, 830 A.2d 133

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Lambert ex rel. Estate of Lambert v. Beede (2002-452); 175 Vt. 610;
830 A.2d 133

2003 VT 75

[Filed 23-Jul-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 75

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-452

                              APRIL TERM, 2003

  Frank H. Lambert for the Estate      }	APPEALED FROM: 
  of Jane Charron Lambert and          }
  Office of Child Support	       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Windsor Family Court
                                       }	
  Francis Beede	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 283-12-82 WrDm

                                                Trial Judge: Paul F. Hudson

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Disabled veteran Francis Beede appeals from an order of the
  Windsor Family Court denying his motion for driver's license reinstatement
  pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 798(c) due to his failure to make child support
  payments to the estate of decedent Jane Charron Lambert.  He argues that
  Vermont law does not allow license suspension where the obligor's permanent
  disability makes repayment unfeasible, and that the trial court erred in
  basing its decision on Beede's failure to make a good faith effort to pay
  his support prior to the onset of his disability.  We agree that the trial
  court's application of § 798(c) in this case improperly transforms a
  measure designed to coerce payment into a punitive device.  Accordingly, we
  reverse.       

       ¶  2.  Beede and Lambert divorced in 1984, assigning Lambert full
  custody of their two children.  Over the next twelve years, Beede paid only
  $2035 of his total child support obligation. In 1996, Lambert successfully
  moved for revocation of Beede's driver's license under 15 V.S.A. § 798,
  which authorizes license removal as a means of providing financially
  capable noncompliants with additional incentive to make their payments.  

       ¶  3.  In 1997 Beede developed a permanently disabling case of
  spinal stenosis, which left him financially unable to make his periodic
  payments.  The family court subsequently suspended his current child
  support obligation, while assessing Beede's debt to the state as $1,278.00
  and to Lambert as $29,269.28.  In 1998 Beede lived off Supplemental
  Security Income (SSI) benefits of $604 dollars per month, which increased
  to $794 per month in November of 2001 when he began receiving Veteran's
  Administration disability benefits. 
   
       ¶  4.  Because of his condition and limited income, Beede filed a
  motion in Windsor Family Court to reinstate his driver's license and to
  permanently modify his child support payments and outstanding arrearage to
  zero.  In an October 25, 2001 hearing where Beede appeared pro se, the
  Office of Child Support (OCS) and Lambert waived any right to arrears
  accruing since 1998, and OCS waived any remaining right to collect on
  arrears due to the State.  The magistrate then (1) modified Beede's child
  support obligation to $0 because he lacked the requisite income and both
  children had reached the age of majority, (2) denied defendant's request to
  reduce his arrearage, but reduced payments on the arrearage to $0, and (3)
  denied Beede's motion to reinstate his driver's license.       

       ¶  5.  In addressing the issue of driver's license reinstatement,
  the magistrate explained that she views a defendant's request in the
  context of his overall behavior, taking his efforts to pay the support into
  account.  Although noting that Beede now lived only with basic necessities,
  she found his payment of $2035 in child support during the entire minority
  of his two children and the accrued arrearages of $29,269.28 dispositive. 
  Because she believed the minimal payments defendant had made over the years
  did not establish a good faith effort to fulfill his child support
  obligations, she denied his request for reinstatement.  

       ¶  6.  Beede filed a motion to reconsider, requesting license
  reinstatement on two grounds.  First, Beede argued that because 15 V.S.A. §
  798(c) provides for reinstatement when "the parent is in compliance with
  the underlying child support order," and he complied with his reduced
  payment order of zero, the magistrate should have reinstated his license. 
  Second, he argued that the inability to make payments toward his
  outstanding arrearage should provide a defense to continued license
  suspension, noting that the magistrate's interpretation made it impossible
  for him to ever regain his license.   

       ¶  7.  The magistrate denied his motion to reconsider, explaining
  that although inability to pay is relevant to the initial motion for
  license revocation according to § 798(a), § 798(c) provides no statutory
  mandate that the court consider the same upon a request for reinstatement. 
  She also upheld her interpretation of § 798(c)'s reinstatement requirement
  of "compliance with the underlying child support order" as requiring a good
  faith effort towards payment not evidenced by Beede's outstanding
  $29,269.28 arrearage. 

       ¶  8.  On appeal, the Windsor family court affirmed the magistrate's
  earlier decision and subsequent denial of Beede's motion to reconsider
  under a deferential standard of review.  Citing  Garrow v. Garrow's
  instruction that trial court decisions are to be disturbed "only in the
  presence of legal error or the absence of factual support for the result,"
  150 Vt. 426, 428,