Title: Wall v. Moore

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Wall v. Moore  (96-448); 167 Vt. 580; 704 A.2d 775

[Filed 24-Oct-1997]

                          ENTRY ORDER

                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-448

                       SEPTEMBER TERM, 1997

Janice M. Wall                  }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     Windham Family Court
                                }
Steven A. Moore                 }
                                }     DOCKET NO. F67-1-95WmDmd

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Steven A. Moore appeals the Windham Family Court's order
  dividing the marital property and debts in a final divorce decree.  He
  further appeals the trial court's decision not to award him spousal
  maintenance, and claims that gender bias motivated the court's decision, in
  violation of the Equal Protection clauses of the United States and Vermont
  Constitutions.  We affirm.

       Plaintiff and defendant were married for the last four years of their
  fifteen year relationship, which ended in a divorce in 1996.  In issuing a
  final decree of divorce, the court distributed all marital assets of the
  parties, including a stock portfolio which defendant had obtained through a
  family inheritance, and all debts.  Prior to distribution, defendant cashed
  a substantial portion of the stocks in the portfolio in violation of a
  court order freezing all assets.

       Defendant first argues that the court committed error in awarding an
  unfair proportion of the marital assets to plaintiff.  He contends that the
  trial court erred in considering the entire length of the relationship for
  distribution purposes and in considering his inherited stock portfolio as a
  marital asset to be distributed.

       15 V.S.A. § 751 governs the distribution of property in a divorce,
  setting out twelve factors the court "may consider," and requires the court
  to "equitably divide and assign the property."  See Semprebon v. Semprebon,
  157 Vt. 209, 215, 596 A.2d 361, 364 (1991).  "The trial court has broad
  discretion in considering these factors, and its decision will be upheld
  unless its discretion was abused, withheld, or exercised on grounds clearly
  untenable."  Id.  The court is not required to delineate the weight given
  to each factor, it is merely required to give a clear statement of what was
  decided and why.  Jakab v. Jakab, 163 Vt. 575, 585,