|
|
|
Marital Home Award to Custodial Parent
© 2005 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
VERMONT: Slade v. Slade, ___ Vt. ___ , 872 A.2d 367 (2005).
The trial court did not err by awarding the wife the marital home only upon the condition that she refinance it to remove the husband's name from the mortgage. The trial court did not err by dividing the parties' credit-card debt equally, even though the husband earned much more than the wife, where the husband had made substantial payments on joint debts during separation. The husband did not dissipate property by withdrawing funds from his retirement accounts before separation to pay legal expenses to defend himself from criminal charges. The payments benefited the marriage by preserving the husband's earning capacity. The trial court did not err in dividing the marital property equally, even though the husband was guilty of infidelity and other fault. The wife appealed, inter alia, the order of equitable distribution based upon multiple grounds. She asserted that it was error for the Family Court to have awarded a fifty-fifty split of the marital estate, arguing that it was inequitable under the circumstances and the factors set forth in the governing statute, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, 751, not to grant her a greater proportion of the property. The Supreme Court of Vermont disagreed and held that the Family Court's order in this regard was not an abuse of discretion.
The wife first claimed that inequity in distribution was shown when the court required that she receive the marital home subject to the contingency that she refinance it. She argued that the court erroneously assumed that she could refinance the property, which she might or might not be able to do, considering her low income. The wife had testified that she wanted the home so that she and the children could live in it after the parties were divorced. She also gave testimony that she would assume the outstanding debt on the property. It was thereafter that the court awarded her the home, but required that she refinance in order to eliminate the husband's obligation, at which time the husband would quitclaim his interest to her. The supreme court found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court's order. This kind of arrangement is common in divorce cases. Moreover, in light of the wife's testimony as outlined above, it was not unreasonable to require the husband to transfer his interest by quitclaim deed only after the wife could show that she refinanced the home.
The wife's second argument asserted that the property division was inequitable to the extent that it divided the parties' credit-card debt equally between them, despite the fact that the husband's gross income was $150,000 per year. The record established that, after the parties separated and before the final decree, the husband had contributed a substantial amount toward the parties' joint debts. Given this fact, the supreme court found the debt distribution to be fair.
Third, the wife asserted inequality in the fact that the Family Court rejected her claim for a right of reimbursement for retirement funds that the parties spent to pay for the husband's legal expenses during the marriage. The husband utilized a portion of his retirement funds to pay lawyers to keep him out of jail. The wife argued that she received no benefit from the expenditure and that it ignored the contractual nature of a marriage. The Vermont Supreme Court disagreed. It noted that during a marriage a husband and wife are legally bound to support each other and their children. Keeping the husband from being imprisoned, the obvious reason for the expenditure of the retirement funds, allowed the husband to continue to earn a living in order to support the family, including the wife. Thus, the Family Court's decision rejecting the wife's claim for a separate reimbursement was no abuse of discretion.
Finally, the wife alleged error in not awarding her a greater share of the marital assets because of the husband's fault. Given that the Family Court did consider fault, as one criterion under the statute, V.S.A. tit. 15, 751(b)(12) (allowing courts to consider the parties' respective merits when dividing the marital estate), the wife's argument was deemed one reduced to challenging the weight of the evidence. A review of the record showed that the Family Court was well aware of the husband's fault his infidelity and legal troubles when it rendered its decision regarding distribution. Given the breadth of a trial court's discretion in giving weight to the statutory factors in light of the evidence presented, no abuse was established.
Go to: Marital Home Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Featured Services | |
|
| The Research Center: ( Cases of Interest by Category ) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Related Information...
| |||||
 How to Hire The Right Divorce Lawyer - You must have the right lawyer to have a successful divorce! provides a road map for finding an effective lawyer and then helps you to monitor his or her performance and fees. |
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!