Title: Mizzi v. Mizzi

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Mizzi v. Mizzi (2004-256); 179 Vt. 555; 889 A.2d 753

2005 VT 120

[Filed 24-Oct-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 120

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-256

                               JUNE TERM, 2005

  Sheila Mizzi	                     }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                           }	Franklin Family Court
                                       }	
  	                                 }
  Brian J. Mizzi	                     }	DOCKET NO. 118-4-02 Frdm

                                          Trial Judge: Stephen B. Martin

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Husband Brian J. Mizzi appeals from the family court's final
  divorce order dividing  the parties' marital property.  Husband contends
  that the court abused its discretion by: (1) failing to consider wife
  Sheila Mizzi's interest in property owned jointly with her mother as part
  of the marital property; (2) awarding possession of the marital home to
  wife; (3) dividing the marital property inequitably; and (4) allowing a
  relief-from-abuse order to remain in effect against husband until the end
  of the nisi period.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The parties were married in Tampa, Florida on April 20, 1990. 
  They had met in 1986 at a cat show, where husband was an exhibitor and
  wife, who also owned and operated a dog-grooming business, was a judge. 
  Husband moved to Vermont in May 1994 and began construction of a
  three-bedroom marital residence on a 150-acre parcel of land in Fairfax,
  Vermont, which the parties owned as tenants by the entirety.  Wife stayed
  in Florida until the summer of 1995, when she sold her business and joined
  husband in Vermont.

       ¶  3.  In addition to the Fairfax property, each of the parties held
  a one-third share in a piece of lakeshore property in Odessa, Florida, in
  which wife's mother held the other one-third share. Wife, her sister, and
  her mother were also listed as joint tenants on the deeds of four other
  properties in Florida and a house in St. Albans, Vermont.  The parties
  stipulated to the division of most of their personal property, none of
  which is specifically at issue in this appeal.
   
       ¶  4.  The parties separated in September 2000, although they both
  continued to live at the marital home.  Husband moved out of the marital
  home on March 11, 2002, after a dispute that resulted in a
  relief-from-abuse order against husband.  On April 28, 2004, the family
  court issued an order granting the parties' divorce and dividing the
  marital property.  The court awarded possession of the marital home to
  wife, requiring wife to pay husband $190,000 for his share of the home. 
  The court also decreed each party one third of the Odessa, Florida
  property, ordering that the property be sold and the proceeds divided
  equally among husband, wife, and wife's mother.  The court refused to award
  husband any portion of the property owned jointly by wife and her mother. 
  Finally, the court refused to terminate the relief-from-abuse order
  immediately, instead leaving it in effect through the ninety-day nisi
  period, which ended July 1, 2004.  Husband then appealed.

       ¶  5.  The property settlement section of Vermont's domestic
  relations law, 15 V.S.A. § 751, requires equitable division of marital
  property upon divorce, and provides twelve non-exclusive criteria to guide
  the family court in making this determination, including the length of the
  marriage, the role of each spouse in acquiring the property, the
  opportunity of each spouse for future earnings, and "the respective merits
  of the parties."  15 V.S.A. § 751(b).  We have recognized, however, that
  "[d]ividing property to achieve an equitable result is not a science
  susceptible to hard and fast rules."  Slade v. Slade, 2005 VT 39, ¶ 9, 16
  Vt. L. Wk. 120,