Case Title: Nevitt v. Nevitt

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-09-01T00:00:00Z

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-117


Lisa Ericson Nevitt                          Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             Windham Superior Court
Bertha Nevitt and
Stephen Nevitt                               September Term, 1989


Stephen Nevitt

     v.

Lisa E. Nevitt


Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

William M. McCarty, Jr., McCarty Law Offices, Brattleboro, and Paul and
   Paul, P.C., Lyndonville, for plaintiff-appellee

Ardith L. Baldwin of Thomas W. Costello, P.C., Brattleboro, for defendant-
   appellant Bertha Nevitt

Jean B. Giddings of Fitts, Olson, Carnahan, Anderson & Bump, Brattleboro,
   for defendant-appellant Stephen Nevitt


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.

     GIBSON, J.      Stephen Nevitt appeals those portions of a divorce
judgment granting his wife, Lisa, custody of their minor child, child
support, spousal maintenance, and a share of the marital estate.  In a
companion case, Stephen's mother, Bertha Nevitt, appeals the trial court's
disposition of the marital homestead, which, although held in Bertha's name,
the court found was held by her as a nominee.  Apart from one aspect of the
court's child support ruling, we affirm the judgment.
                                    I.
     Stephen and Lisa were married in January of 1976 and had one child,
Laura, in August of 1977.  During the marriage, Stephen operated his own
wholesale jewelry business, with the assistance of Lisa.  They resided in a
house that the court found had a fair market value of $68,500 at the time
the parties separated in April of 1985.  Stephen purchased the house prior
to the marriage, and in 1975 he transferred it to his father.  After the
bank foreclosed the mortgage in 1979, Stephen and Lisa redeemed the property
and put the title in Lisa's maiden name.
     In July of 1985, approximately one month before Stephen filed for
divorce, he asked Lisa to sign an agreement releasing her entire interest in
the marital homestead.  In return, Stephen was to pay Lisa $5,000 over a
period of time and pay off a few relatively minor family debts.  After
initially refusing to sign and walking out on a meeting with Stephen and his
attorney, Lisa, at the insistence of Stephen, finally signed the agreement
and executed a blank warranty deed.  Stephen made only one $500 payment
under the agreement, claiming the value of a jewelry sample case stolen from
Lisa's possession offset the remainder.  At the time of trial, the deed was
in the name of Bertha Nevitt, though Bertha had not been present when Lisa
executed the deed, and the property transfer tax return indicated that she
had paid no consideration for the property.
     Stephen filed for divorce in August of 1985.  The court advised the
parties, prior to the final hearing, that Bertha would have to be joined as
a party.  Thereafter, Lisa filed a complaint against Stephen and Bertha,
asserting that they had fraudulently coerced her into relinquishing all her
interest in the marital homestead.  The cases were joined and a hearing was
held on September 3, 1987.  At the hearing, the trial court ruled, in an
oral notice of decision, that it would grant the divorce and award custody
of Laura to Stephen, leaving the remaining issues for a later hearing;
however, this decision was never incorporated into a written order because
of a dispute over the wording of a proposed order.
     At the close of the continued hearings, held on December 29, 30 and 31,
1987, the court noted that no decree had been issued following the earlier
hearing, and it then made comprehensive oral findings, "covering all aspects
of the case."  A final decree disposing of all issues was ultimately filed
on February 2, 1988.  In addition to granting the divorce, the court awarded
Lisa full parental responsibility for Laura, citing Lisa's ability to
provide "consistent, intimate interaction" with Laura and her willingness to
communicate with Stephen.  Further, the court ordered that (1) Laura remain
with Stephen in Vermont until the close of the school year; (2) Stephen pay
Lisa $225 per month in child support; (3) Stephen have the right to occupy
the marital homestead for eighteen months, at which time Lisa would assume
sole possession; (4) Stephen have the right, while occupying the homestead,
to purchase the property from Lisa for $60,000; and (5) Stephen pay Lisa
$275 per month in "spousal maintenance" while occupying the homestead or
until he bought out her interest.
     Both Stephen and Bertha appeal the final order.  Stephen argues that
the trial court erred by (1) improperly modifying the September 3 decision
when it awarded custody to Lisa; (2) ordering him to pay child support
while the child resided with him; and (3) awarding maintenance and
attorney's fees when Lisa had made no request for such awards.  In addition,
he claims that the court's findings in dividing the marital property were
not supported by the evidence.  Bertha contends the trial court erred in
finding that she held title to the marital homestead as a nominee and took
unfair advantage of her as a pro se litigant.
                                    II.
     Stephen first asserts that the court's initial award of custody to him
constituted a final order and that no change in circumstances warranting a
modification of the order had occurred between the September and the
December hearings.  Stephen also argues that the court erred in its division
of parental rights and responsibilities by awarding Lisa legal custody
while giving him physical custody till the end of the school year.  We
disagree on both counts.
     Subsequent events have rendered the custody issues moot.  On March 11,
1988, Stephen brought Laura to her mother's work place in New Haven,
Connecticut, and informed Lisa that he no longer wanted custody of the
child.  In April of 1988, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby
they agreed that Laura would reside with her mother.  The parties filed the
stipulation with the court the following month.  The custody issues thus
have become moot.  An issue that has become moot will not be considered by
this Court on appeal.  North Country Educ. Ass'n v. Brighton School Bd., 135
Vt. 451, 452,