Title: Root v. Root

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Root v. Root (2004-015); 178 Vt. 634; 882 A.2d 1202

2005 VT 93

[Filed 02-Aug-05]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 93

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-015

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 2005

  Susan Connal Root	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Rutland Family Court
                                       }	
  A. Kenneth Root	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 463-10-97 Rddm

                                                Trial Judge:  Patricia Zimmerman

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

       ¶  1.  Mother appeals from the family court's order finding her in
  contempt and modifying father's spousal maintenance obligation.  We affirm
  the court's contempt finding but reverse its modification order.

       ¶  2.  Mother and father divorced in February 2000 after
  approximately sixteen years of marriage.  Mother was awarded sole legal and
  physical parental rights and responsibilities for the parties' four minor
  children.  Father was granted liberal parent-child contact.  The final
  divorce order required that the parties mediate any disputes involving the
  parent-child contact schedule.  At the time of their divorce, both parties
  resided in Killington, Vermont.  Father was employed as a sales associate
  with Killington Valley Real Estate; mother had not worked outside the home
  for approximately thirteen years.  

       ¶  3.  The parties had significant marital debt as well as several
  income-producing assets.  One such asset was a parcel of property, referred
  to as the Bigelow Drive property, which contained both commercial and
  residential space.  At the time of the final divorce order, Alan Neveu was
  operating a ski rental shop in the commercial space and paying $1298 in
  monthly rent.  Mr. Neveu was also paying the parties approximately $2700
  per month on a promissory note, which was to be paid in full on November
  30, 2000.  

       ¶  4.  Father was ordered to pay mother monthly rehabilitative
  maintenance between December 1, 2000 and December 31, 2005 as follows:
  $1500 directly from father; $1298 in commercial rent from the Bigelow Drive
  property; and $450 in rent for an apartment at the Bigelow Drive property. 
  The court stated that father could keep any increase in rental income from
  these properties but conversely, should the rental incomes decline, he
  remained obligated to pay the amounts set forth in the order.  The court
  indicated its expectation that father's income would increase during this
  five-year period and mother would obtain wage-producing income.     
   
       ¶  5.  In August 2001, mother relocated to Connecticut with the
  children without consulting father.  Father filed an emergency motion to
  compel mother to comply with the parent-child contact schedule set forth in
  the final divorce order, and he asked the court to hold mother in contempt
  for deliberately violating the order.  Mother then filed a motion to
  enforce father's outstanding spousal maintenance obligation and to hold him
  in contempt.  Father responded with a motion to modify his maintenance
  obligation, asserting that he no longer had the ability to pay
  rehabilitative maintenance as set forth in the final divorce order.

       ¶  6.  Father made the following arguments in support of his motion
  to modify.  At the time of the final divorce hearing, the Bigelow Drive
  commercial premises had been rented to Alan Neveu for $1298 per month. 
  Father believed that Mr. Neveu would renew the lease but Mr. Neveu did not
  do so, and the lease expired on November 30, 2000.  By that time, it was
  too late to rent the premises to another tenant so father reinstituted the
  ski rental business and ran it himself through the winter of 2000-2001. 
  Although the ski rental business produced revenues, it barely broke even. 
  As a result, father had not received rent for the commercial premises, and
  his revenues from the ski business were insufficient to pay the rental
  equivalent portion of his maintenance obligation that had previously been
  paid by Mr. Neveu.  The abandonment of the ski rental business by its
  former tenant was unanticipated by father, and it constituted a real,
  substantial, and unanticipated financial change since the final divorce
  order.  Father also maintained that because of a downturn in the real
  estate market, he had fewer commissions available to him, which also
  constituted a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances. 

       ¶  7.  After four days of hearings, the court issued an order
  finding mother in contempt and reducing father's maintenance obligation. 
  As to the first issue, the court explained that under the terms of the
  parties' final divorce order, father had been granted visitation every
  other weekend, and on Monday and Wednesday evenings, with an overnight stay
  on Wednesdays.  The order also provided that the children could telephone
  either parent as they wished.  Mother left Vermont with the children in
  August 2001; she did not discuss her move with father beforehand, she did
  not file a motion to modify the parent-child contact order, and she did not
  engage in mediation as required by the divorce order.  The court rejected
  mother's assertion that she had made a last-minute decision to relocate,
  finding her testimony not credible.  The court found that Judge Cohen had
  ordered mother to comply with the existing contact order at an August 2001
  hearing, where mother participated by telephone.  Mother did not comply
  with the contact order, however, and father was routinely unable to parent
  the children on a regular schedule without court intervention.  Mother also
  put a block on her telephone, which prevented the children from calling
  father.  
        
       ¶  8.  In reaching its conclusion, the court recognized the
  financial realities that had precipitated mother's move, but it found that
  this did not provide a basis for mother to relocate without first
  addressing how father would exercise his right to parent the children.  The
  court explained that the parties' final divorce order had contemplated that
  mother would attempt to subvert father's parenting of the children, which
  was why the order included a mediation provision.  The final order also
  contained a detailed parenting schedule to limit the need for any
  "negotiation" between the parties.  The court concluded that mother was
  aware of the terms of the final divorce order and its parent-child contact
  provisions, and she had intentionally prevented father from parenting the
  children in accordance with that schedule.  The court also found that
  mother was aware of Judge Cohen's verbal order directing that parent-child
  contact would continue as set forth in the final order and she had
  intentionally violated that order as well.  The court found that mother's
  actions constituted clear and substantial violations, and it therefore
  found her in contempt.  

       ¶  9.  The court also granted father's motion to modify spousal
  maintenance after finding that there had been a real, substantial, and
  unanticipated change in father's financial circumstances since the final
  divorce order.  The court explained that a partial source of father's
  maintenance payment had been rental payments from Mr. Neveu, and this
  income source had ceased in November 2000 when Mr. Neveu  failed to renew
  his lease.  The court stated that while father had taken over the ski
  rental business from Mr. Neveu, he had not had sufficient time to market it
  during the 2000-2001 season and the business had broken even.  The court
  also found that the final divorce order contemplated that father's income
  from real estate commissions would increase over the five-year period of
  rehabilitative maintenance, and the evidence showed that his income from
  the real estate business had decreased in 2001.  The court noted that the
  final divorce order also contemplated that mother would obtain outside
  employment to supplement her income.  The court found that mother had not
  made any effort to obtain job skills while living in Vermont, and she
  continued to assert that she could not parent and work at the same time.  

       ¶  10.  As to father's income, the court made the following specific
  findings.  Father's gross income in 2000 was $53,717, $45,000 of which was
  from real estate commissions.  In 2001, father received approximately
  $29,500 in real estate commissions.  Relying on an exhibit prepared by
  father, the court found that father had received $16,000 in net income from
  his ski rental business between June 2001 and April 2002.  The court
  concluded that father had less income than he did in 1999 because the
  promissory note payments from Mr. Neveu had ceased.  As noted above, the
  court also found that the income from the commercial rental of the Bigelow
  Drive property had ceased in November 2000.  Adopting a May 2001 finding by
  a magistrate, which was made in connection with child-support proceedings,
  the court concluded that father's current income from all sources was
  approximately $4300 per month.  After reviewing father's expenses, the
  court concluded that father had the financial ability to pay $850 per month
  in rehabilitative maintenance.  The court also retroactively reduced
  father's maintenance obligation by $1298 per month between March 2001 and
  January 2003, which represented the commercial rent from the Bigelow Drive
  property; and it reduced father's $1500 per month payment to $850 as of
  April 2001.  Mother appealed.

       ¶  11.  We first address mother's challenge to the court's contempt
  finding.  Mother maintains that she should not have been found in contempt
  of Judge Cohen's verbal order because she was not present at the hearing
  and she had no knowledge of the order.  She also argues that it was
  physically and financially impossible for her to comply with the
  parent-child contact provisions of the final order, and the court therefore
  erred in finding her in contempt.  
        
       ¶  12.  Contempt proceedings in family court are governed by 15
  V.S.A. § 603 and Rule 16 of the Vermont Rules for Family Proceedings.  The
  family court may hold a parent in contempt if it finds a clear and
  substantial violation of a court order.  V.R.F.P. 16(b)(1), (5).  We will
  reverse an order of contempt only if it is shown on appeal that the court
  abused its discretion by issuing the order.  Hunt v. Hunt, 162 Vt. 423,
  436,