Case Title: Gavala v. Claassen

Citation: 175 Vt. 487, 2003 VT 16, 819 A.2d 760

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Gavala v. Claassen (2002-059); 175 Vt. 487; 819 A.2d 760

2003 VT 16

[Filed 14-Feb-2003]
          
                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 16

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-059

                             JANUARY TERM, 2003

  Artemie Gavala	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Windsor Family Court
                                       }	
  Mary B. Claassen	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 370-9-99 Wrdm

                                                Trial Judge: Theresa S. DiMauro

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

       ¶  1.  Father, who is seeking modification of a Massachusetts order
  in Vermont family court based on mother's residence in Vermont and his
  claim that he is no longer living in Massachusetts, appeals decisions of
  the magistrate and the family court setting aside an earlier order and
  dismissing his modification petition.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The parties were divorced under a 1988 Massachusetts order. 
  Mother moved to Vermont with the parties' minor daughter in 1993.  In
  September 1999, father filed a motion in the Windsor Family Court to
  register and modify the February 1999 Massachusetts order setting father's
  child support obligation at $300 per week.  In February 2000, following
  several days of hearings, the magistrate registered the Massachusetts order
  in Vermont based on evidence presented by father indicating that he was a
  Pennsylvania resident.  In June 2000, the Office of Child Support (OCS)
  filed a motion to reopen the registration of the Massachusetts order and to
  dismiss father's modification petition.  The magistrate denied the motion
  in an August 9, 2000 decision following a July 14 hearing.
   
       ¶  3.  In October 2000, OCS filed a renewed motion to reopen, citing
  newly discovered evidence indicating that no certificate of occupancy had
  been issued for the house at the address claimed by father as his
  Pennsylvania residence.  On December 1, 2000, one week before the scheduled
  hearing on the motion to reopen, OCS moved to permit a Pennsylvania
  planning commissioner to testify by telephone as to what he found when he
  recently inspected the house father was claiming as his residence.  The
  magistrate granted the motion on the day of the hearing, and the planning
  commissioner testified that the house in question was under construction
  and unoccupied.  On cross-examination, the planning commissioner conceded
  that he had not actually entered the basement of the house.  Based on the
  planning commissioner's testimony and other evidence, the magistrate found
  that father had falsely claimed to be a Pennsylvania resident to avoid
  Massachusetts jurisdiction over his child support obligation.  Accordingly,
  the magistrate granted OCS's motion to reopen and dismissed father's
  modification petition.  Father appealed to the family court, and filed a
  motion asking the court to allow him to submit the testimony of his
  landlord, who had been present when the planning commissioner inspected his
  claimed residence.  The court denied the motion and upheld the magistrate's
  decision.

       ¶  4.  On appeal to this Court, father argues that (1) the planning
  commissioner's speculative testimony was insufficient for the magistrate to
  find fraud by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) the family court was
  compelled by statute to grant his motion to submit the testimony of his
  landlord.

       ¶  5.  With respect to his first argument, father correctly states
  that, to obtain relief under V.R.C.P. 60(b)(3), OCS was required to
  demonstrate fraud by clear and convincing evidence.  See Bardill Land &
  Lumber, Inc. v. Davis, 135 Vt. 81, 82,