Title: White v. White

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

349 A.2d 894 (1975) Robert R. WHITE v. Roberta B. WHITE. No. 271-74. Supreme Court of Vermont. December 2, 1975. *895 Parker & Lamb, Springfield, for plaintiff. Leslie G. Black of Black & Plante, White River Junction, for defendant. Before BARNEY, C. J., SMITH, DALEY and LARROW, JJ., and SHANGRAW, C. J., Specially Assigned. BARNEY, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a contested divorce action. The only issue relates to the provision of the order decreeing the jointly owned residence of the parties and the two acres of land on which it stands to the defendant wife. The plaintiff husband claims this disposition to be contrary to the requirements of 15 V.S.A. § 751, which reads as follows: The argument of the plaintiff is based upon the situation of the parties as shown by the facts, which are not challenged here. The plaintiff is a carpenter, unemployed at the time of the hearing and for a month prior thereto, collecting unemployment compensation of $86.00 per week. The defendant wife, who has and has had custody of the two minor children, aged 17 and 10, is employed at an area newspaper. She nets approximately $124.00 per week, and the plaintiff, when employed, nets approximately $130.00 a week. The parties owned, at the time of the hearing, an uncompleted house standing on two acres of land. In 1963 the parties purchased a house and about 125 acres of land. The house and five acres of land were placed in their joint names, and the remaining acreage was put in the plaintiff's father's name. The division was done for financing purposes. In 1965, plaintiff's father deeded the additional acreage back to the plaintiff alone. In 1973, after divorce proceedings had been instituted, the plaintiff conveyed this acreage to his mother, for no consideration. The house purchased in 1963 was sold to pay plaintiff's business obligations and the balance used in the construction of the incomplete house now decreed to the defendant. It is the position of the plaintiff that the distribution of this property to the defendant is unfair and unjust, and, in effect, leaves him destitute. He is in arrears in his support payments, has an outstanding *896 indebtedness of $1,000.00, and no remaining assets from the marriage to relieve the problem. It is his claim that such value as the house has is solely due to his efforts in building it. The plaintiff goes on to assert that this division of property which he claims is unfair is based upon his transfer of land to his mother, although nothing in the findings, conclusions of law, or judgment order says so. The consideration of this transfer, the plaintiff says, was improper as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Assuming for the purposes of the plaintiff's claim that the lower court did take into account the gratuitous transfer, it must be pointed out that the statute, 15 V. S.A. § 754, specifically provides for disclosure of, and accounting for, such transfers: Even if the statute did not provide for the giving of such information, the inquiry would be proper by the court in any event, in order to avoid transfers of property by one spouse in derogation of the rights of the other, or the children, or both. Culver v. Culver, 133 Vt. 191, 193-94, 332 A.2d 799 (1975). See also Rudin v. Rudin, 132 Vt. 30, 33, 312 A.2d 736 (1973). Moreover, as has been so often said in our cases, the division of property is a matter of wide discretion in the trial court, and it may decree such property in the manner it deems just, whether held separately, jointly, or by entirety. Unless abuse appears upon review, the decree will stand. LaFarr v. LaFarr, 132 Vt. 191, 193, 315 A.2d 235 (1974); Allen v. Allen, 132 Vt. 182, 185, 315 A.2d 459 (1974). The circumstances of this case, as expressed in the undisputed facts, show no abuse of discretion requiring this Court's intervention. Order affirmed.