Case Title: Semprebon v. Semprebon

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-02-01T00:00:00Z

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. 89-012


Judith C. Semprebon                          Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Orange Superior Court

Thomas Semprebon                             February Term, 1991



Linda Levitt, J.

Oreste V. Valsangiacomo, Jr., and Gary D. McQuesten of Valsangiacomo,
  Detora, McQuesten, Rose & Grearson, Barre, for plaintiff-appellant

Richard E. Davis and Edwin W. Free, Jr., of Richard E. Davis Associates,
  Inc., Barre, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Judith Semprebon filed this divorce action
against defendant Thomas Semprebon.  Plaintiff appeals from the final order,
claiming that:  (1) the trial court's findings with respect to certain
marital property were clearly erroneous; (2) the court failed to indicate
the weight given to each statutory factor in fashioning the property award;
and (3) the court improperly failed to award spousal maintenance.  Defendant
Thomas Semprebon cross appeals, also claiming error in the valuation of
certain property.  We affirm the property settlement but reverse and remand
for consideration of plaintiff's request for maintenance.  The parties were
married on September 29, 1973.  They had three children together, whose
present ages are 13, 15, and 17.  Plaintiff also has another child from a
previous marriage.  Beginning in the early 1980s, the parties apparently
began having difficulties in their relationship.  Plaintiff complained that
defendant did not communicate with or pay attention to her or show affection
toward her, spending most of his time at work rather than with her or their
family.  Defendant believed that such "love and attention problems" were, to
some degree, "a normal part" of any marriage.
     In October of 1986, plaintiff engaged in an extramarital affair, and
the parties separated in December of 1986.  Following their separation,
defendant paid for plaintiff's purchase of a condominium, and gave her $8000
to furnish it.  Defendant remained in the family home with the children.
     Defendant has a college degree and, prior to the marriage, had worked
out of state.  In 1972, he returned to Vermont to join his family's
business, Calmont Beverages Company, Inc., in Barre.  Over the years,
through the efforts of defendant, defendant's brother, and their father,
Calmont has grown and proven to be a very profitable enterprise.  In 1986,
for example, the business had gross sales of nearly four million dollars.
At the time of the final divorce hearing, defendant and his brother each
owned a 37% share of the corporation and the senior Semprebon held the
remaining shares.  A shareholders' agreement provided that, at the death of
their father, the brothers would purchase the remaining shares from his
estate for a fixed price of $100,000.  The corporation paid the premiums
for a life insurance policy on the senior Semprebon, the proceeds of which
will cover the purchase price of these shares.
     Defendant's adjusted gross income for 1987 was $165,268.  Because
Calmont is a Subchapter S corporation, defendant is taxed on some
undistributed corporate earnings that he did not actually receive.  The
trial court could not determine the extent to which the $165,268 was
actually received by defendant.
     Plaintiff was thirty-five years old at the time of the divorce and had
a high school degree and limited career skills.  During the marriage, she
worked primarily at home and cared for the children.  At the time of the
final divorce hearing, plaintiff worked in a furniture store as a
salesperson and interior designer.  She earned $175 per week plus a five
percent sales commission.  From May 16, 1988, to September 2, 1988, her
earnings totaled $4454.
     After the final divorce hearing, the trial court awarded legal and
physical rights and responsibilities for the parties' three children to
defendant, pursuant to an agreement of the parties.  Because of plaintiff's
low income, the court ordered her to pay only a nominal amount of monthly
child support.  The court ordered defendant, however, to pay plaintiff a
"maintenance supplement" of $200 per month "to help equalize plaintiff's and
defendant's living situations so that the children can enjoy the same
activities with plaintiff during their visitation with her as they do at
home with defendant."
     The court valued the major property as follows.  It found plaintiff's
condominium to be worth $115,000 and to be free of any mortgage.  It further
found that plaintiff had received $20,000 from the parties' joint bank
account to purchase an automobile and had cashed her $12,000 IRA account.
It found that defendant possessed the following assets:  (1) a house valued
at $195,000 and encumbered by a $30,000 mortgage, (2) the 37% share in
Calmont Beverage valued at $392,000 plus $113,000 for Calmont's real estate
minus $66,000 in debt owed by defendant to Calmont, and (3) a pension valued
at $14,000.  It also found that defendant owed his father about $32,000,
incurred in part to finance plaintiff's condominium.  The court made the
following property settlement:
           (7)  Defendant is awarded all his interest in Calmont
         Beverage, the home in Williamstown, his pension,
         household furnishings and other personal property
         presently in his possession . . . .
           (8)  Defendant shall be solely responsible for the
         mortgage on the home and debts due his father and
         Calmont Beverage.
           (9)  Plaintiff is awarded the condominium, cash,
         household furnishings and other personal property
         presently in her possession . . . .
           (10)  In addition to the property awarded plaintiff
         in # 9, plaintiff is awarded cash in lieu of property in
         the amount of $135,000.  As of June 1, 1989, defendant
         shall pay plaintiff $25,000 each year for five
         consecutive years and shall pay plaintiff $10,000 on
         June 1 of the sixth year.

In reaching its settlement, the court stated:  "In light of the factors
listed in 15 V.S.A. { 751, and the fact that the divorce was more
plaintiffs' fault than defendant's fault, the court will award more than
half of the property to defendant."
     The trial court denied both parties' motions to reconsider the order.
This appeal and cross appeal followed.
     Plaintiff makes a series of claims with respect to the findings
supporting the property award.  Her most earnest attack is on the court's
valuation of defendant's interest in Calmont Beverage Company, which she
argues is unsupported by the evidence.  Significantly, plaintiff's own
expert witness, James Powers, offered the most detailed testimony on the
value of defendant's share of Calmont.  Powers, a certified public
accountant, testified that there are several acceptable methods for valuing
a closely held business.  He stated, "Obviously, there is no set number that
really represents the specific value of Calmont, but the answer comes back
in a range."  Accordingly, he described three methods he had used to arrive
at a low, a medium, and a high figure for the value of defendant's share.
The first method, the "equity approach," yielded a value of $275,000 for
defendant's share.  The second, the "income approach," provided a value of
$392,000.  The third, an "entity approach," resulted in a value of
approximately $650,000.  Defendant's expert witness, John Salvador, an
accountant who had worked for Calmont, offered a single estimate of the
value of defendant's share in the business: $277,000.  The trial court made
the following finding:
         Defendant's 37% share of Calmont Beverage is valued at
         $392,000 based on the income approach of estimating
         value.  Although differing estimates of value were
         presented at trial, the court finds this estimate to be
         the most reasonable one under all of the circumstances
         and represents the value of defendant's minority
         interest.

    We will not disturb the court's findings of fact unless, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and excluding
the effect of modifying evidence, a finding is clearly erroneous.  McCrea
v. McCrea, 150 Vt. 204, 206,