Feddersen v. Feddersen
| Decision Date | 10 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | Civ.App.No. 1995/185. |
| Citation | 41 V.I. 230 |
| Parties | Walter FEDDERSEN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Frauke FEDDERSEN, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Divorce decree was entered by the Territorial Court, and husband appealed. The District Court, three Judge panel, held that: (1) record supported finding that husband's infidelity contributed significantly to breakdown of marriage; (2) testimony concerning wife's alleged infidelity was properly excluded; (3) distribution of 75% interest in marital homestead to wife and 25% interest to husband was proper; (4) record supported lump sum alimony award of $223,742.63 to wife; (5) record supported award to wife of 50% interest in corporation of which husband claimed to be 100% owner; and (6) $77,605.10 attorney fee award in favor of wife was not abuse of discretion.
Affirmed. Henry L. Feuerzeig, Simone R.D. Francis, St. Thomas, U.S. V.I., for appellant.
Carl J. Hartman III, Paul J. Ruskin,1Kevin A. Rames, St. Croix, U.S.V.I., for appellee.
Before RAYMOND L. FINCH, Judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands; STANLEY S. BROTMAN, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Sitting by Designation; and EDGAR D. ROSS, Territorial Court Judge, Division of St. Croix, Sitting by Designation.
This appeal arose out of an action for divorce. The issues presented are: 1) whether the trial court erred in finding that the breakdown of the marriage was caused by Walter Feddersen's extramarital affair; 2) whether the court erred in awarding Frauke Feddersen a seventy-five percent (75%) interest in the parties' marital homestead; 3) whether the court abused its discretion in awarding Frauke Feddersen alimony in the amount of $223,742.63 and costs and fees in the amount of $77,605.10; and finally 4) whether the court erred in awarding Frauke Feddersen an interest in MAFF, Inc., MAFF II, Inc., Walter Feddersen Construction, and Atlantic Trading Company, Inc. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the Territorial Court will be affirmed.
I. FACTS
Walter Feddersen [“Mr. Feddersen” or “appellant”] and Frauke Pohns Feddersen [“Mrs. Feddersen” or “appellee”] [collectively referred to as “the Feddersens”] began dating in Hamburg, Germany in 1963, and were married on February 6, 1970 in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. Two sons were born of the marriage: Falk in 1971, and Kirst in 1972. In the beginning, Mr. Feddersen worked on a charter boat, in construction, and as a toolmaker. Later, Mr. Feddersen formed Walter Feddersen Construction [“WFC”] and invested in several other business ventures. Mrs. Feddersen initially worked in the charter industry, and then as a legal secretary and title searcher. She subsequently worked as a real estate broker in the early 1980s.
The Feddersens' marriage eventually became strained with frequent arguments and an apparent inability to communicate effectively. After attending marital counseling sessions and making several attempts at reconciliation, they separated on April 1, 1990. Mr. Feddersen concluded that the breakdown of the marriage was irreparable and filed for divorce on June 28, 1991.
Mr. Feddersen's Complaint alleged, inter alia, that with him as a contractor, and Mrs. Feddersen as a real estate broker, neither would be in need of alimony. The Complaint sought an equal division of both the marital abode at No. 7–O Estate Nazareth and jointly owned personal property in his wife's possession. Mr. Feddersen made little or no mention of the substantial assets acquired during the marriage, and essentially sought to have both parties go their separate ways after division of the marital homestead.
Mrs. Feddersen contested the divorce alleging that the breakdown of the marriage was caused by appellant's “unabated affair with a woman since April 1988.” (Joint Appendix [“J.A.”], Vol. I at 26.) She also argued that while appellant was capable of supporting himself, she was entitled to alimony to maintain the lifestyle to which she had become accustomed. Mrs. Feddersen further argued that her husband's equity in the marital abode should be substantially reduced to no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of its value because his affair was the proximate cause of the breakdown of the marriage. Finally, Mrs. Feddersen argued that the substantial assets and personal property acquired during the marriage should be equitably divided by the court. Clearly, a chasm divided these parties in terms of the relief sought.
In addition to her answer and counterclaim, Mrs. Feddersen filed a Verified Complaint (Terr.Ct.Civ. No. 938/1991) against Walter Feddersen, Walter Feddersen Construction, Inc., MAFF, Inc., MAFF II, Inc., The Cove at Smith Bay (a limited partnership), Atlantic Trading Co., Inc. and VM/EASE, Inc. 2 seeking, inter alia, partition and requesting that the court declare her interest in all of these companies and their assets. Mrs. Feddersen also sought to have this matter consolidated with the divorce. That request for consolidation was denied in part, and granted only to the extent that “[t]he issues of the values of all real and personal property owned by the parties are consolidated and determinations as to those matters made in this action [for partition] shall be applicable” to the divorce action. ( Id. at 51.)
Mr. Feddersen amended his complaint on or about December 9, 1992 adding that “[a]s the deterioration of the marriage was caused by the defendant's continuous mental cruelty and verbal abuse inflicted on the plaintiff since 1985, including unwarranted public and private screaming fits, name-calling, physical attacks, and the repeated and prolonged refusal of sexual relations, the plaintiff is entitled to at least a 75% interest in the marital homestead.” ( Id. at 48, 408–09.)
The trial court heard argument and testimony in this matter on thirteen different occasions before entering a decree of divorce on December 2, 1993. 3 The December 2nd decree stated that the court would address, at a later date, whether the breakdown of the marriage was due to Walter Feddersen's marital fault or misconduct, and, if so, to what extent fault would affect the disposition of the marital homestead and remaining issues in the divorce and action for partition.
On February 3, 1995, the court placed its findings of fact on the record. 4 It then entered its Supplementary Findings of Fact on February 8, 1995. In that February 8th document, the court found that—despite his secrecy—Mr. Feddersen's income was in excess of Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000). The Court buttressed this finding by noting that Mr. Feddersen's Skyline Drive Condominium project alone earned a profit in excess of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000), and he received Two Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($225,000) in dividends from MAFF, Inc. for 1991–1992. The court also included revenues earned from rental properties and Mr. Feddersen's Prudential Bache investments in its calculation of income. Then, on April 7, 1995, the trial judge awarded Mrs. Feddersen $65,000 in attorney's fees, together with $12,605.10 in costs. The trial judge entered a Final Decree of Divorce and Judgment on October 18, 1995 awarding Mrs. Feddersen lump sum alimony in the amount of $223,742.63; a seventy-five percent (75%) interest in the former marital abode at 7–O Estate Nazareth; and a fifty percent (50%) interest in the following:
(1) their jointly held real property; 5
(2) WFC which owns condominiums 2A and 4D Skyline Village, as well as 3Q Estate Bakkeroe and 1D Estate Thomas;
(3) Mr. Feddersen's interest in MAFF, Inc. and MAFF II, Inc.;
(4) all dividends issued to Mr. Feddersen by MAFF, Inc. and MAFF II, Inc.
(5) the sail boat “Hamburg;”
(6) the Atlantic Trading Company
(7) all other personal property, including savings and checking accounts, either in personal or joint names, including but not limited to the Walter Feddersen Construction, Inc. account at the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Walter and Frauke Feddersen Realty account at Banco Popular, retirement accounts, certificates of deposit, furniture, fixtures, vehicles, and art work.
(J.A., Vol. I at 108–13.) Mr. Feddersen appeals the trial judge's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and exercise of discretion.
II. DISCUSSIONA. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
This Court has appellate jurisdiction to review judgments and orders of the territorial court in all civil cases. SeeV.I.Code Ann. tit. 4, § 33 (1997 & Supp.1998); Section 23A of the Revised Organic Act of 1954.6 Our review of the Territorial Court's application of legal precepts is plenary, and findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. See Prosser v. Prosser, 34 V.I. 139, 144, 921 F.Supp. 1428, 1432 (D.V.I.App.Div.1996); Columbian Emeralds v. Historic Preservation Commission, Civ. No. 93–225, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20754 (D.V.I.App.Div. Dec. 23, 1996). Only where the lower court's finding is unsupported by a credible evidentiary basis will the reviewing court reverse its decision, with due regard being given to the trial judge's opportunity to determine witness credibility. See4 V.I.C. § 33; see also Rabsatt v. Estate of Savain, 31 V.I. 237, 239, 878 F.Supp. 762, 764 (App.Div.1995); Mayers v. Mayers, 1986 St.X.Supp. 165, 174 (D.V.I.1986). The “clearly erroneous” standard protects findings of fact from reversal to a certain extent, but does not apply to findings of law, which are reviewed de novo. SeeSteven A. Childress & Martha S. Davis, Federal Standards of Review § 2.01 (2d ed.1992). Finally, the trial court's alimony award, and disposition of the marital homestead are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Coman v. Coman, 492 F.2d 273, 278 (3d Cir.1974); Barrows v. Barrows, 489 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1974).
B. Whether the Evidence was Sufficient for the Trial Court to Find that the Breakdown...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robles v. Robles
...factual determinations of the fact finder unless those findings are shown to be clearly erroneous. Feddersen v. Feddersen, 41 V.I. 230, 68 F. Supp. 2d 585 (D.V.I. App. Div. 1999); C&C/Manhattan v. Gov't of the V.X., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24543 (D.V.I. 2004); see also Bloch v. Bloch, 473 F.2......