Title: Kanaan v. Kanaan

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

KANAAN_V_KANAAN.91-378; 163 Vt 402; 659 A.2d 128

[Filed 24-Mar-1994]

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. 91-378


Hiyam H. Kanaan                                   Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                            Windham Family Court

Hisham R. Kanaan                                  September Term, 1994



Robert Grussing III, J.

William M. Dorsch, John D. Shullenberger and Beth A. Danon of Mickenberg,
Dunn, Sirotkin & Dorsch, and Donald E. O'Brien, Burlington, for
plaintiff-appellant 

Ellen Mercer Fallon and Peter F. Langrock of Langrock Sperry & Wool,
Middlebury, for defendant-appellee 


PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Norton, Superior J.,
Specially Assigned 


     DOOLEY, J.  Plaintiff, Hiyam Kanaan, appeals a decision of the Windham
Family Court in the divorce action against her former husband, Hisham Kanaan.
 Plaintiff alleges that the trial court erred: (1) in its findings regarding
the valuation of the parties' individual businesses and their marital home,
(2) in denying plaintiff reimbursement for the couple's joint tax liability,
(3) in failing to enforce the parties' initial separation agreement, and (4)
by permitting defendant to pay plaintiff's equitable settlement award in
installments, thereby decreasing the actual value of that award.   We
conclude that the trial court erred by failing to enforce the parties'
pretrial agreement, and by permitting defendant to pay the equitable
settlement award in installments.  We reverse and remand on both of these
issues.  In all other respects, the decision is affirmed. 

 

                                I.

     Plaintiff first claims that the trial court's factual findings regarding
the valuation of the couple's individual businesses and their marital home
were inadequate.  Specifically, she points to the findings supporting the
court's valuation of her husband's businesses, collectively known as the
Bradley Group; her business, Brattleboro Printing, Inc. (BPI); and the
couple's marital home in Brattleboro.   Plaintiff contends that for each
asset the court's findings were inadequate to support its valuation
conclusions.  We deal with each argument in turn. 

     It is well settled that we will not disturb a trial court's findings of
fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  Semprebon v. Semprebon, 157 Vt. 209,
214, 596 A.2d 361, 363 (1991). The reason the trial court is granted such
wide deference on review is that it is in a unique position to assess the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence presented.
Bonanno v. Bonanno, 148 Vt. 248, 250-51,