Case Title: Pearson v. Pearson

Citation: 169 Vt. 28, 726 A.2d 71

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Pearson v. Pearson  (97-102); 169 Vt. 28; 726 A.2d 71

[Filed 29-Jan-1999]

  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. 97-102

Joseph S. Pearson	                             Supreme Court

                                                     On Appeal from
     v.		                                     Caledonia Family Court

Darlene J. Pearson	                             May Term, 1998

Mary Miles Teachout, J.

Robert R. Bent of Zuccaro, Willis and Bent, St. Johnsbury, for 
  Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas R. Paul of Paul and Paul, St. Johnsbury, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Defendant mother challenges the Caledonia Family
  Court's final  divorce order awarding to plaintiff father sole parental
  rights and responsibilities of the parties'  son, Justin.  Mother argues
  that the court erred in basing its award on the assumption that father 
  would establish a household in Waterford, Vermont, and in defining a
  failure to do so as a change  in circumstances for the purpose of assuming
  jurisdiction in a future modification proceeding.  Mother also argues that
  in determining parental rights and responsibilities, the court erred in 
  emphasizing the parties' conduct immediately following their separation and
  while mother was  training for a new job and that the court erred when it
  did not order any shared parental rights  and responsibilities.  Further,
  she argues that if we remand the parental rights and responsibilities 
  award, the court's award of $15,000 to father must likewise be
  reconsidered, and that the court's  imposition of a $15,000 lien on
  mother's home violates the homestead exemption pursuant to 27  V.S.A. §
  101.  We vacate and remand the family court's award of sole parental rights
  and  responsibilities and the division of marital property.

       The family court found, and the parties do not challenge, the
  following facts.  The parties 

 

  were married in June of 1990.  They resided in a Lyndonville home that
  mother purchased before  the marriage.  Justin was born in February of
  1992.  The parties separated in June of 1995 when  father moved out of the
  Lyndonville residence and into his mother and stepfather's home in 
  Lancaster, New Hampshire.  The final divorce order issued on February 14,
  1997. The court  found that both parents were fully able to exercise
  parental rights and responsibilities over Justin.  Based in part on its
  finding that father intended to follow through on the parties' formerly
  shared  plan to move to Waterford in order to enroll Justin in the school
  system there, the court awarded  father sole parental rights and
  responsibilities.  In its order, the court stated that if father failed  to
  move to Waterford within a prescribed time period, it would consider that
  failure a substantial  change of circumstances sufficient to warrant court
  review of the award.	

                                     I.

       We first address mother's challenge to the court's order defining a
  change of  circumstances for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction in a
  future modification proceeding.   Mother contends that the order
  contravenes our decision in Gazo v. Gazo, 166 Vt. 434,