Case Title: Boisclair v. Boisclair

Citation: 176 Vt. 646, 2004 VT 43, 852 A.2d 617

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Boisclair v. Boisclair (2003-211); 176 Vt. 646; 852 A.2d 617

2004 VT 43

[Filed 12-May-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 43

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-211

                              MARCH TERM, 2004

  Lorie Boisclair	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Lamoille Family Court
                                       }	
  Daniel Boisclair	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 186-11-01 Ledm

                                                Trial Judge: Edward J. Cashman

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

       ¶  1.  Husband Daniel Boisclair appeals from the family court's
  final divorce order.  He argues that the court erred in (1) distributing
  the marital property, (2) awarding spousal maintenance, and (3) awarding
  parent-child contact with the restriction that visits take place in
  Vermont.  We affirm the parent-child contact award, reverse and remand the
  distribution of the marital property, and remand the spousal maintenance
  award.

       ¶  2.  Husband and wife were married in 1994.  They have two
  children, Daniel, who is seven years old, and Lucas, who is two years old. 
  Husband is twenty-eight years old and lives in Watervliet, New York where
  he is employed as a union painter.  Wife is thirty-one years old and
  provides day care services out of her Vermont home.  The parties separated
  in 2001, and wife initiated divorce proceedings.  During the divorce
  hearing, the parties reached an agreement regarding the distribution of the
  marital assets and liabilities.  They agreed that wife should keep the
  marital home, valued at $45,000, and she would be solely responsible for
  paying the $34,000 mortgage as well as a $6,000 medical lien on the
  property.  The court notified the parties that it found this agreement
  inequitable and would likely reject it.  The court provided the parties
  with an opportunity to establish that their agreement was fair. 

       ¶  3.  The court issued its final divorce order in February 2003. 
  It awarded wife the marital home but rejected the parties' proposed
  distribution of debts associated with the property.  The court ordered wife
  to bear primary responsibility for the payment of the mortgage but it did
  not require her to hold husband harmless should she be unable to maintain
  payment of the joint debt.  The court also ordered husband to pay the
  $6,000 lien attached to the property, which stemmed from medical treatment
  that he had received.  The court determined that husband should pay wife
  $500 per month in maintenance for at least eight years.  Finally, the court
  awarded father visitation with the children every weekend and specified
  that, unless otherwise agreed, the contact would occur in Vermont rather
  than New York.  Wife filed a motion to amend the judgment, asking the court
  to set a schedule for husband's repayment of the $6,000 lien and the court
  amended its order accordingly.  Husband appealed.
   
       ¶  4.  Husband first argues that the court erred in rejecting the
  parties' agreement regarding the distribution of debts associated with the
  marital home.  We agree.  The trial court is authorized to equitably divide
  and assign marital property, and it may consider various statutory factors
  in making its decision.  Cabot v. Cabot, 166 Vt. 485, 500,