Title: Adamson v. Dodge

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Adamson v. Dodge (2001-494); 174 Vt. 311; 816 A.2d 455

[Filed 01-Nov-2002]

       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. 2001-494


  Dawn (Dodge) Adamson	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Chittenden Family Court


  Jeffrey Dodge	                                 September Term, 2002


  Linda Levitt, J.

  Cynthia L. Broadfoot of Cynthia Broadfoot, P.C., Burlington, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Beth Robinson of Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, for
    Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

        
       JOHNSON, J.  Father Jeffrey Dodge appeals from an order of the
  Chittenden Family Court granting mother Dawn (Dodge) Adamson's motion to
  enforce the terms of the parties' divorce order, denying father's motion
  pursuant to V.R.C.P. 60(b) to set aside the divorce order, and granting
  father's motion to modify present and future support obligations.  He
  alleges that the trial court erred: (1) in modifying child support
  obligations without considering Vermont's Child Support Guidelines and
  without justifying deviations from the guidelines; (2) in setting child
  support obligations at a level that exceeded father's ability to pay
  according to the trial court's own findings; (3) in reallocating dependency
  exemptions from father to mother and thus further reducing the amount of
  money father has available for child support; (4) in setting the date of
  retroactivity for modification of father's child support obligation without
  making findings to support the chosen date and assessing father's
  pre-modification support obligation incorrectly; (5) in violating federal

 

  bankruptcy law by imposing upon father a debt discharged in bankruptcy; (6)
  in awarding attorney's fees to mother; and (7) in failing to set aside an
  order that was impossible from the outset.  We affirm the trial court in
  refusing to set aside the final divorce order, but we reverse the trial
  court's reallocation of the dependency exemptions, imposition upon father
  of the debt discharged in bankruptcy, and award of attorney's fees, and
  remand for recalculation of the amount of father's child support obligation
  and for reconsideration of the other issues raised in this appeal
  consistent with this opinion. 

       The trial court found the following facts.  The parties met in
  college, where they both received degrees in engineering.  They married in
  1987, and had four children over the course of their eleven year marriage. 
  In 1992, father enrolled in medical school.  Mother stayed at home and
  cared for their children.  For support, the family borrowed money and
  received government assistance.  The family moved frequently throughout the
  midwest so that father could obtain medical training, finally moving to
  Vermont where father completed his residency requirements. 
   
       In 1998, father disclosed to mother that he was gay, and the couple
  separated later that year.  The couple went to a mediator to settle the
  terms of the divorce in August of 1998.  In June of 1999, mother and father
  signed a stipulation settling the terms of the divorce. Mother was
  represented by counsel, but father did not want representation.  The
  following provisions of the stipulation are relevant to this appeal: (1)
  Father assumed all student loans and credit card debt.  (2) Mother retained
  sole parental rights, but father would have contact with his children for
  two weekends a month, some vacations, and some holidays.  (3) During
  father's residency, child support of $1,040 per month, established in
  accordance with the Vermont Child Support Guidelines, would be paid by
  father to mother, along with a $500 per month maintenance supplement.  At
  the end of father's residency, father's payments to mother of child support
  and maintenance supplement were to increase to one-half of his pre-tax
  income, or $90,000 a year, whichever was greater.  This child support floor
  was 

 

  based on the parties' assumptions about average salaries for gynecologists
  in the midwest.  (4) Father assumed the entire cost of the children's
  college educations.  (5) Father could claim all four children each year as
  dependents for income tax purposes.  (6) Father's child support obligations
  continued until the youngest child turned eighteen or terminated his
  secondary education.  At that time, the obligations became spousal support
  obligations. (7) Any modification of child support obligations due to a
  significant change of income was to be calculated based on the Child
  Support Guidelines.  (8) In the stipulation, the parties failed to
  recognize that father's available income for child support was
  significantly less than his gross salary due to taxes, student loan
  payments, and credit card debt obligations.  Father had assumed that he
  would be splitting his after tax income, although the stipulation referred
  to pretax income.  The terms of the stipulation were incorporated into a
  final divorce order issued on January 21, 2000. 

       Father accepted a position in Wisconsin at a private medical office to
  begin on July 31, 2000.  He hoped that mother would move to Wisconsin so
  that he could continue regular visits with the children.  Father paid the
  requisite child support through the date that he finished working as a
  resident, June 22, 2000.  Between June 22 and July 31, father was
  unemployed and did not make any child support payments to mother. 
  According to father, during this time he prepared and sat for his board
  certification exams. 
   
       On July 19, 2000, mother filed a motion to enforce child support
  obligations.  In her motion, she demanded salary withholding from father at
  the $1,540 per month rate that father was obligated to pay during his
  residency.  On the same day, she filed a petition to modify child support,
  demanding that father's payments be increased to $7500 per month in
  accordance with the provision of the divorce stipulation that payments were
  to increase to this level when father finished his residency.  On August 7,
  2000, father filed both a motion for relief from judgment and a motion to

 

  modify the child support obligations contained in the divorce stipulation. 
  During the following year,  father made payments to mother of between
  $3,500 and $4000 a month. 

       While employed by Aurora Medical Group in Wisconsin, father's salary
  was $195,000.  His gross monthly pay was $16,000. After taxes, father took
  home $9,500.  The trial court found that each month father made $2,300 in
  student loan payments, payments to mother averaging $3,500 monthly, $1,400
  in minimum credit card payments, $675 in rent payment, and payments of
  approximately $800 for travel expenses to visit his children in Vermont. 
  The trial court found that father had $400 to $500 available for utilities,
  food, and telephone bills.

       Within two weeks after he began his Wisconsin job, father gave his
  six-month notice of his resignation.  Mother had decided not to relocate. 
  He wanted to return to the Vermont area to be closer to his children.  The
  trial court found that under the circumstances father's decision to make
  this move was not unreasonable despite the resulting decrease in his
  salary.  In January 2001, father moved to Plattsburgh, New York to take a
  position as a gynecologist. (FN1)  Father's salary initially decreased to
  $135,000, although it was expected to increase to $150,000 after the first
  year, then to decrease as he bought into the practice, and eventually to
  level out at approximately $200,000 per year.  For the initial year in
  Plattsburgh, father's gross monthly pay was $11,250, and the trial court
  concluded father's reasonable monthly expenses, excluding child support,
  were $7,520.  The trial court does not provide any rationale for this
  estimate of father's expenses, but they are the same numbers that appear in
  father's affidavit of his expenses in Plattsburgh, which included taxes of
  $4,172 per month.  This leaves father with $3,730 available monthly for
  child support.
   
       Two additional events have altered the financial position of the
  parties in this dispute.  First, in March of 2001, mother secured
  employment as an engineer paying $60,000 per year.  Second, in 

 

  June 2001, father filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The final divorce order
  required father to assume all credit card debt incurred during their
  marriage.  When father filed for bankruptcy, his credit card obligations
  were discharged.  Because mother's name remained on the account, the Fleet
  credit card company sought repayment from mother. 
   
       The trial court declined to set aside the final divorce stipulation,
  but agreed with father that his financial circumstances did not allow him
  to pay mother the $7500 minimum monthly support as the parties anticipated. 
  The court thus granted mother's motion to enforce the divorce order as well
  as father's motion to modify child support obligations.  Section 660 of
  Title 15 allows a court to modify child support obligations upon a finding
  of "a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances."  15
  V.S.A. § 660.  The trial court found that father had "maintained a modest
  lifestyle" while living in Wisconsin and Plattsburgh, that his loan
  payments are higher and his salary lower than the parties expected when
  they entered into the stipulation, and that his move to Plattsburgh was
  reasonable under the circumstances.  The court also observed that mother is
  now earning more than the parties may have anticipated when they signed the
  stipulation.  On the basis of a finding of a change of circumstances, the
  court reduced the amount of child support that father was to pay monthly
  from the $7,500 per month specified in the divorce stipulation to $4,500 a
  month.  This reduction in father's support obligation was made retroactive
  to September 1, 2000, approximately one month after father filed his motion
  for modification.  The court awarded mother $25,000 in past due child
  support, without explaining how it calculated the arrears.  The court
  determined father should pay that balance to mother at $500 a month until
  the balance was cleared.  The court also held father responsible for the
  credit card debt transferred to mother following father's bankruptcy.  The
  court ordered father to pay $500 monthly to mother until the remaining
  balance ($13,000 plus interest and penalties) was cleared.  The court
  ordered father to pay $15,000 of the attorney's fees mother incurred to
  enforce the divorce stipulation.  Finally, the court determined that 

 

  mother would receive the tax deductions for the two oldest children
  effective beginning in the 2001 tax year.

                                      A

       Father first argues that the trial court erred in modifying child
  support obligations without addressing the Child Support Guidelines as
  required by 15 V.S.A. §§ 654-663.  He claims that the court may award
  support that is not based on the support guidelines only after
  consideration of the factors established in 15 V.S.A. § 659(a) and must
  give an explanation of why these factors justify the deviation from the
  guidelines.  In this case, the trial court made no findings based
  explicitly on these factors.  There was no reference to the Child Support
  Guidelines in its decision.  Although we note that father's income may have
  exceeded the levels of the support guideline adopted by the Agency of Human
  Services, and that § 656(d) states that the "court may use its discretion
  in determining child support" when incomes exceed the level covered by the
  guideline, we have held previously that the factors listed in § 659(a) must
  still be considered in cases where a noncustodial parent's income exceeds
  the guideline tables.  Smith v. Stewart, 165 Vt. 364, 372,