Title: Wade v. Wade

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Wade v. Wade  (2004-045); 178 Vt. 189; 878 A.2d 303

2005 VT 72

[Filed 01-Jul-2005]

  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.

                                 2005 VT 72

                                No. 2004-045

  Susan Smith Wade                                Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
       v.                                         Washington Family Court

  Mason D. Wade                                   February Term, 2005

  Geoffrey W. Crawford, J.

  Brian K. Valentine of Schoenberg & Associates, Burlington, for
  Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Lauren S. Kolitch, Waitsfield, for Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:   Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
             (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.   ALLEN, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.  In this appeal from a
  final judgment of divorce, husband challenges the family court's exclusion
  from the marital estate money given to the parties' minor child in
  accordance with the Vermont Uniform Gift to Minors Act (VUGMA), 14 V.S.A.
  §§ 3201-3209.  Husband also contests the property division as inequitable
  because the court awarded nearly ninety percent of the marital property to
  wife.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.   Husband and wife were married in 1991, had one child together,
  and separated in 2002.  The parties, their daughter, and husband's son from
  a prior relationship lived the Town of Waitsfield in a home that wife
  purchased before the parties married.  Since 1985, wife used part of the
  home to run the Sunshine Montessori School, Inc., a nursery school she
  founded and continues to operate.  Husband has a landscaping business. 
  During the marriage husband also took on seasonal work in the restaurant,
  construction, and ski industries.  Over the last four years, husband earned
  between $13,000 and $23,000 annually.  Wife's income from the Sunshine
  School averaged $21,824 in 2000-2002.  

       ¶  3.   In 1996, wife received a series of gifts from her mother.  She
  was given title to her mother's home, which wife rented out until 2002 when
  she sold the property.  Wife also received $22,000 in cash and put $40,000
  from her mother into a VUGMA account for the parties' minor daughter.  The
  $22,000 gift to wife went into an account in her name only.  Wife
  subsequently exhausted the money in the account by using it to pay for
  various family expenses.  At the time of the divorce hearing, the VUGMA
  account had a $25,000 balance.  Wife testified that she spent approximately
  $18,000 from the VUGMA account for family expenses, including her own
  medical expenses.  

       ¶  4.   After wife sold the home her mother gave her in 2002, the
  parties each received $10,000 from the proceeds.  The remaining proceeds of
  $59,000 were placed into escrow pending  distribution in the divorce
  proceeding.  After her mother died, wife used some of her inheritance to
  purchase a twenty-nine foot sailboat and a catamaran for the family. 
  Husband spent time repairing and maintaining the boats for the family, and
  used his carpentry and other handyman skills to maintain and improve the
  parties' residence.  The family also owned a camper, and husband held a
  half interest in a seasonal camp in Rochester, Vermont.  
   
       ¶  5.   Throughout the marriage, wife paid the mortgage on the marital
  residence and most of the household expenses.  Husband paid half of the
  household utilities and charged many of his own expenses, and those of his
  landscaping business, to credit cards.  At the time the parties separated,
  husband had over $23,000 in personal and business credit card debt.  Wife's
  credit card debt was a fraction of husband's.  After separating, wife
  remained in the marital home, and husband moved into a friend's home where
  he acts as caretaker.  

       ¶  6.   Wife filed for divorce in October 2002.  She sought primary
  custody of the parties' daughter and most of the parties' property,
  although wife agreed that husband and their daughter should have liberal
  contact.  Husband wanted a shared parenting arrangement-one week every
  other week-and asked the court to split their property roughly fifty-fifty. 
  Both parties hired expert witnesses to testify about the value of the
  Sunshine School.  It was undisputed that husband's business had no value.

       ¶  7.   The court issued a written order following a hearing in
  December 2003.  Wife received approximately ninety percent of the marital
  property, including the parties' home and all of its equity, the catamaran,
  the camper, and the escrowed proceeds from the sale of her mother's home. 
  The court awarded husband the sailboat, $10,000 from the sale proceeds that
  he had already received, his interest in the Rochester camp, and his tools. 
  Crediting wife's expert witness, the court found that the Sunshine School,
  while valuable to wife personally, had no market value.  The court also
  concluded that the VUGMA account was not subject to distribution because it
  was the property of the parties' daughter.  As to parental responsibilities
  for the minor child, the court adopted the arrangement set forth in the
  parties' stipulated temporary order, which allowed the child to spend
  overnights with husband every Wednesday and every other weekend from Friday
  until Monday morning.  
   
       ¶  8.   In support of the property award, the court explained that
  wife had lived in the parties' home since 1985, six years before the
  parties' married.  Wife paid the mortgage and property taxes.  She also
  paid for the parties' two boats and contributed all of her income to other
  household expenses.  The court acknowledged that what money husband earned
  was spent primarily on the household, but it noted that husband "never
  earned much in any year."  The court found that husband had not "followed a
  conventional career; instead he has enjoyed the freedom of working on a
  seasonal basis and taking time when he wishes to work on his own business." 
  The court found that husband could earn more money working a full-time job
  in construction or some other business if he chose.  

       ¶  9.   In his appeal, husband first claims that the court should have
  distributed the VUGMA account because it was part of the marital estate. He
  argues that wife never executed any trust documents to establish an
  irrevocable account for their daughter, and that she used the money for her
  own purposes.  Therefore, husband contends, the funds in the account are
  marital property subject to distribution in the divorce.  The family
  court's fact findings on the VUGMA account will stand on appeal if they are
  supported by any credible evidence in the record.  Hayden v. Hayden, 2003
  VT 97, ¶ 14, 176 Vt. 52,