Title: Rogers v. Wells

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Rogers v. Wells (2001-544); 174 Vt. 492; 808 A.2d 648

[Filed 14-Aug-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-544

                               JUNE TERM, 2002


  Joan A. Rogers	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
  Donald E. Wells	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. S124-98 CnC

                                                Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Father Donald Wells appeals from a decision by the Chittenden Superior
  Court enforcing the terms of a contract he entered with mother Joan Rogers
  Powell regarding parental rights and responsibilities for the parties'
  child.  Father argues that the superior court was without jurisdiction to
  enforce the contract as mother's complaint properly belonged in family
  court, and that the court's interpretation of the contract was erroneous. 
  Although we find that the superior court did have jurisdiction over
  mother's complaint, we agree that the court erred in its interpretation of
  the agreement.  Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a determination of
  any arrears owed by father.

       The parties had one child, Robert, who was born in 1993.  The parties
  did not marry.  When their relationship ended, the parties entered into an
  agreement regarding parental rights and responsibilities.  Both parties
  were represented by counsel, and signed the agreement in August 1995.  The
  agreement divided up the parties' property, including a farmhouse and
  adjacent property on Poor Farm Road in Colchester, Vermont, which had
  served as the parties' primary residence during their relationship.  That
  agreement stated in part:

         9.  Father will pay mother the sum of $1800.00 per month as
    child support for Robert and as father's contribution toward the
    expense of the Poor Farm Road residence for a period of five years
    from the date hereof.  Father's $1800.00 per month payment shall
    be reduced to $800.00 per month upon the happening of any of the
    following: (1) mother's cohabitation with another; (2) mother's
    relocation; or (3) at the end of five years from the date hereof.
           a. Commencing in year six following the date of this
    Agreement, father shall pay mother the sum of $800.00 per month as
    child support for Robert; said support to be paid monthly until
    Robert graduates from high school so long as the parties are
    exercising parent-child contact as set forth . . . above.

 

  This dispute centers on the amount of payments made in satisfaction of this
  clause.  Father began making payments of $1800 in August 1995 until
  November 1996, when he reduced payment to $900, which continued until
  November of 1998.  In response to this reduction, mother initiated an
  action in family court requesting that the court enforce the 1995
  agreement. The family court declined to enforce the agreement for lack of
  jurisdiction because the parties had not married, although it did hold
  hearings to establish child support according to the statutory guidelines. 
  Before hearings could be held, the court set $900 as the temporary child
  support amount.  In September 1998, mother triggered one of the conditions
  of paragraph nine by marrying another man.  In November 1998, after several
  days of hearings, the family court magistrate established a child support
  obligation for father of $154.76 per month.  That order was not appealed. 
  Father's payments from December 1998 until the present have been
  approximately $154 per month.

       Mother filed the present action in superior court in January 1998
  seeking, as she had in family court, enforcement of the terms of the
  agreement.  Mother claimed that father had violated paragraph nine of the
  agreement by not paying the full $1800 until her marriage in 1998.  She
  argued that the agreement provided that the $1800 and the reduced amount of
  $800 were undifferentiated between child support and a property settlement. 
  Because part of the money owed her was to support the Poor Farm Road
  residence, she was entitled to receive the full amount (by then only $800). 
  Father responded that he had complied with the agreement and that his
  reduction in payments were in response to a change in his financial
  circumstances, and mother's misrepresentations about her cohabitation.  He
  also asserted that he was obligated to pay only the amount of child support
  as determined by the family court.  The superior court agreed with mother,
  so far as it concluded that paragraph nine lumps together child support and
  property support without differentiating the amount for each.  The court
  concluded, however, that father was entitled to credit for the amount of
  child support as determined by the family court.  Father appealed.

       On appeal, father argues that the superior court was without
  jurisdiction to interpret the agreement, characterizing mother's superior
  court claims as an "anticipatory collateral attack" on a family court
  ruling.  Father claims that because this case relates to child support, the
  suit is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court.  Father
  further argues that even if the superior court has jurisdiction, its
  interpretation of the agreement was error.  He contends that the court was
  required to determine what amount described in paragraph nine was child
  support and what amount was for support of the Poor Farm Road property.  By
  concluding that the agreement lumped the two amounts together, the court
  did not fulfill its obligation to interpret the contract according to the
  plain language and the parties' intent.
   
       The superior court properly had jurisdiction over this case.  The
  superior court is the court of original jurisdiction over civil actions,
  while the family court has limited jurisdiction over particular matters
  including divorce and child support.  Compare 4 V.S.A. § 113 (superior
  court jurisdiction) with id. § 454 (family court jurisdiction).  We have
  acknowledged that the two courts do not have overlapping jurisdiction -
  matters that belong in family court may not be brought in superior court. 
  St. Hilaire v. DeBlois, 168 Vt. 445, 447,