Case Title: Weaver v. Weaver

Citation: 173 Vt. 512, 790 A.2d 1125

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Weaver v. Weaver (2001-444); 173 Vt. 512; 790 A.2d 1125

[Filed 09-Nov-2001]
        
                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-444

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2001

Janet Weaver	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Addison Family Court
                                       }
                                       }	
Todd B. Weaver	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 126-7-99 Andm

                                                Trial Judge: Rita Flynn Villa

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

       Husband appeals the final order of divorce.  Husband contends: (1) the
  court abused its  discretion in considering husband's adultery in
  allocating the debt and property of the marriage; (2)  the court erred in
  distributing husband's tax-deferred savings plan (TDSP) and car debt, and
  in  awarding a clock to wife; (3) the court abused its discretion in
  failing to adopt husband's proposed  parent-child contact schedule; (4) the
  court's maintenance award was erroneous; and (5) the court  erred in not
  awarding child support.  We affirm in part and remand for the calculation
  of separate  maintenance and child support orders.  

       The parties were married on August 6, 1992, and have one child, a son
  Devin, born September  17, 1994.  Wife has a high school education and
  worked eighteen hours a week at an off-track betting  office at the time of
  the marriage.  Husband has an associate's degree in electronics technology
  and  has worked for IBM since 1982.  Near the time of Devin's birth, the
  couple agreed that wife would  stop working to stay at home to care for the
  child.  In 1996, to accommodate husband's employment  transfer at IBM, the
  family moved from Fishkill, New York, to Colchester, Vermont.  The family 
  eventually bought and moved into a three bedroom ranch home in Monkton. 
  Husband began an  extra-marital relationship with a woman he met through an
  internet chat room.  After discovering the  relationship, wife attempted to
  save the marriage and sought marriage counseling.  Husband  maintained his
  preference for his new partner and relationship, however, ending the
  marriage.  The  couple separated in September 1999, and husband moved in
  with his new partner.  

       The parties stipulated to shared joint legal and physical rights and
  responsibilities for Devin.   At the final hearing, the court heard
  testimony on the issues of parent-child contact, spousal  maintenance, and
  property distribution.  The court adopted mother's parent-child contact
  proposal,  which awarded mother parent-child contact during the school
  week, and father parent-child contact 

 
 
  every weekend from Friday afternoon until Monday morning.  Under the
  schedule, the parties  alternate vacations and school holidays and divide
  the summer evenly in two-week alternating  intervals.  The court awarded
  wife one half the coverture share of  husband's TDSP account and IBM 
  retirement.  The court reduced this award by part of the marital debt,
  resulting in a net award to wife  of $9,733.62.  The court awarded wife
  possession of the 1999 Ford Escort and ordered her  responsible for the
  outstanding loan thereon from September 1, 2000 forward.  Citing the tax 
  consequences of maintenance and child support, the court awarded wife
  maintenance rather than  child support.  The court ordered husband to pay
  wife $3,000 per month for the first six years, then  for the following six
  years, $2,500 per month.  Husband appeals.

       Husband first contends that the court abused its discretion in
  considering his fault when  distributing the debts and assets of the
  marriage.  Relying on cases from other jurisdictions, husband  argues that
  only egregious conduct that shocks the conscience of the court should
  qualify as fault  which may be considered by a court when dividing marital
  property.  Husband maintains that  adultery, even if proven, does not
  constitute fault which can influence a court's distribution of marital 
  property.  In Vermont, the family court has wide discretion in dividing
  marital property, and we will  uphold its decision absent a showing of
  abuse or withholding of this discretion.  Trahnstrom v.  Trahnstrom, __ Vt.
  __, __