On
Appeal from Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Family Division
Martin A. Maley, J.
Cynthia L. Broadfoot of Broadfoot, Attorneys at Law,
Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sara
Moran of Affolter Gannon, Essex Junction, for
Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Skoglund, Robinson and Eaton,
JJ.
EATON,
J.
¶
1. Husband appeals from a final divorce order, arguing that
the Family Division of the Chittenden Superior Court: (1)
inequitably divided the marital assets; (2) committed
reversible errors of fact; and (3) issued a decision based on
impermissible bias. We affirm.
¶
2. Husband and wife were married in Florida in 2000, less
than a month after the birth of their twin boys. They resided
in husband's home state of Florida for the first several
years of the marriage. They then moved to Vermont, living
with wife's family in Enosburg, and later in St. Albans,
before purchasing a home in Essex in 2010.
¶
3. Both parties were employed for most of the marriage,
although husband was laid off from his job and remained
unemployed for roughly one year. During that time, he filed a
discrimination lawsuit against his employer, which resulted
in a settlement. In February 2014, the parties separated, and
wife filed for divorce. At the time of the final hearing,
wife was employed as a property manager, earning $59, 000
annually, while husband was employed as a production
supervisor earning $52, 000 annually. Since the parties
separated, wife and the children have lived at the home in
Essex. A partial final order concerning parental rights and
responsibilities and parent-child contact, which is not part
of this appeal, was issued in December 2014.
¶
4. On July 1, 2015, the court held a final hearing to
conclude all remaining issues relative to the division of
property. The parties' marital property was modest. Their
primary asset was the marital residence in Essex. They agreed
that the home had a value of $253, 500, and the court
concluded that the equity of the home was approximately $38,
000.[1]
They also agreed that they had $8000 in a savings account,
that wife's vehicle had a value of $5000-$6000, and that
they had a $28, 000 tax lien stemming from taxes owed by
husband as part of his discrimination settlement. Husband
estimated he expected to receive $9000 in proceeds pending
from a personal injury claim. The parties disputed the value
of husband's vehicle, a 1972 Chevelle; wife asserted that
it was worth up to $30, 000, whereas husband felt that it was
worth $9865.[2]
¶
5. At the hearing, wife testified that the relationship was
"a bad situation . . ., it was never good." She
described husband's behaviors as creating strain on the
relationship, especially his infidelity, alcohol abuse, and
going out with friends leaving her home alone with the
children. Although she had hoped that moving the family to
Vermont would put an end to husband's affairs and
drinking, it did not. Wife also testified that over time,
husband became increasingly hostile and verbally abusive
towards her, and that on a number of occasions husband
unexpectedly left the family and went back to Florida. In her
view, this behavior only worsened when husband was laid off
from his job and the stress of his discrimination lawsuit
caused him to become depressed. She also described the effect
of husband's drinking and verbal abuse on the children,
as many of his outbursts occurred in their presence, and
their current struggles with mental health issues: one child
is depressed and the other has made suicidal gestures
requiring residential treatment.
¶
6. Wife further testified as to the stress created by
husband's excessive spending habits, which reached an
apex when his discrimination suit was resolved and he
received between $86, 000 and $89, 504 in settlement
proceeds.[3] Even before the settlement, husband had
over $27, 000 in credit card debt.[4] Following the settlement, he
paid off that debt, and he spent some of the funds on
improvements to the marital home, although the parties
dispute the amount of those improvements, [5] and $23, 547.99
on guns, jewelry, and a Mercedes automobile, which he later
wrecked. He also made large cash withdrawals and took cash
advances on credit cards; when he reached the spending limits
on his credit cards, he used PayPal to make further
purchases.
¶
7. Husband's struggles with finances came to a head in
October of 2014 when he filed for bankruptcy. At the time he
filed, the parties had been separated for nine months, but
had yet to file for divorce. The bankruptcy petition included
unsecured debt of $66, 000, including approximately $50, 000
in credit card debt.
¶
8. Wife testified that except for the home improvements,
husband's purchases were made without her knowledge or
were made over her objection. Wife also testified that as a
result of this spending, she was forced to obtain a personal
loan to pay her car loan and two credit union bills. Although
the parties acknowledge that they understood they would be
liable for state and federal income taxes on the settlement
proceeds, and in fact set aside approximately $26, 000 for
those taxes, that money was spent on other things. While the
family court found that some of that money was spent
consensually by the parties on home improvements, the court
did not have enough evidence to clearly identify how the rest
of the money was spent. Wife testified that when it became
clear that they did not have sufficient funds remaining to
pay the settlement tax obligation, she set aside $8000 from a
severance payment made to husband for that purpose.
¶
9. At the hearing, husband contested wife's account of
the marriage. He claimed that wife inaccurately blamed him
for the failure of the marriage, denied ever engaging in
extramarital affairs, and denied the verbal abuse. He also
claimed that his excessive drinking was under control by 2013
and that his drinking was primarily in response to stress
brought on from his discrimination lawsuit. Regarding his
spending habits, husband claimed that wife was aware of the
purchases, did not protest them at the time, and that some of
the purchases were for her benefit. In addition, he argued
that the timing of the bankruptcy, which was after the
parties separated, shows that a contributing factor was the
pending divorce to a greater extent than his spending habits.
¶
10. Weighing all the evidence, the family court considered
all twelve factors listed in 15 V.S.A. § 751(b) in order
to determine an equitable distribution of the marital
property. The court particularly honed in on the fact that
the children's stability was increased by allowing wife
to maintain the family home; that although money from the
settlement was used for improvements and repairs to the
marital home, such money was a marital asset received during
the marriage and that husband's spending contributed
significantly to the depreciation of the marital estate; and
that the merits of the parties was a significant factor in
the court's determination. As to the respective merits of
the parties, the court ...