Wallis-Buxton v. Buxton
| Decision Date | 03 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2019-363 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Alison Wallis-Buxton v. Garrison Buxton* |
Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.
Superior Court, Windham Unit, Family Division
DOCKET NO. 243-11-16 Wmdm
Trial Judge: John R. Treadwell
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Husband appeals from the trial court's final divorce order. He challenges the court's award of primary physical and legal rights and responsibilities (PRR) in the parties' child to wife and its division of the marital estate. We affirm.
The parties married in January 2006; wife filed for divorce in November 2016. Husband was 46 years old at the time of the court's final order; wife was 45. Both parties have master's degrees.
At the outset of their marriage, the parties lived in New York, where husband had established a design studio, gallery, and community space. Husband was primarily employed either as an artist or in related work. Wife worked as a caterer and arts consultant; she worked with Ad Hoc Arts, LLC, a company founded by husband and a friend, until the parties' child was born. Wife received trust income that helped support the parties during the marriage. Husband had a large inheritance that he used to support the parties as well. The parties' earned income was minimal.
In May 2010, the parties moved to a home in Londonderry, Vermont, owned by husband and his sister. Husband inherited this property before marrying wife; the home had long been in his family. In November 2013, the parties' daughter H.B. was born. The court found that wife predominantly provided care for H.B. after her birth.
Wife moved out of the marital home in May 2017. She first moved to Middletown Springs, Vermont, and then to Rutland. Husband continues to live in the marital home, approximately 40 miles away. Wife relocated without consulting husband and the court found that, due to wife's relocation, a 50/50 parent-child contact (PCC) schedule was infeasible. Wife primarily had H.B. during the weekdays; husband had H.B. on weekends. The parties could not communicate or coparent effectively. The court cited numerous examples of this, most of which involved wife acting inappropriately, including disparaging husband in front of H.B. The court also found that, toward the end of the marriage, wife kicked and punched husband and threw things at him. Husband pushed wife out of the way. The court found that the post-separation merits slightly favored husband.
Wife's current source of income was dividends from her father's charitable remainder trust. She also worked with art galleries in Rutland. Husband worked as a freelance artist and engaged in digital design work and sign painting. Additionally, husband received payment for projects from a separate nonprofit organization called Ad Hoc Arts Org., Ltd., which was founded in July 2016, although this was contingent on entering into contracts. Since 2012, husband had also operated a booth at a local farmer's market.
As indicated above, husband inherited a substantial sum from his mother before the marriage; he had about $600,000 left at the time of the marriage. His inheritance was spent down to support the parties' lifestyle, invest in Ad Hoc Arts, LLC, and improve the Londonderry residence. There was $4000 left of this inheritance at the time of the court's final order. For the most part, the parties kept separate finances and bank accounts during the marriage.
The court explained that husband and a friend founded Ad Hoc Arts, LLC, prior to the marriage. Husband invested about $150,000 from his inheritance into the business. After the friend was removed, wife became part-owner of the business. She owns 49% and husband owns 51%. Wife was primarily responsible for the business side of the company and husband was responsible for the art side. The LLC's present value was approximately $15,000, primarily comprised of materials and supplies. The LLC was closely associated with the Welling Court Mural Project. As noted above, husband also ran Ad Hoc Arts Org., Ltd. Husband also bought a small sign business and associated equipment for $15,000 during the pendency of the divorce, without notifying wife or obtaining her consent.
The court also made findings about real estate owned or partially owned by the parties, as well as personal property and debts. The court found that the parties lived beyond their means during the marriage and that they lacked the financial resources to maintain the same standard of living going forward.
Based on these and other findings, the court awarded primary legal and physical rights and responsibilities in H.B. to wife and divided the marital estate. We detail the court's reasoning below in conjunction with husband's arguments on appeal.
I. PRR and PCC
A. Trial Court's Ruling
We begin with the court's PRR and PCC awards. In reaching its conclusion, the court considered the statutory best-interest factors. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(1)-(9). It found that parents loved H.B. and she was strongly bonded to both parents. Thus, the first statutory best-interest factor favored both parents equally. It similarly found that both parents could assure that H.B. received adequate care and lived in a safe environment, and both demonstrated an equal ability and disposition to meet H.B.'s present and future developmental needs. The court found H.B. fully adjusted to her present housing, school, and community and determined that this factor favored neither parent.
The court then considered the "ability and disposition of each parent to foster a positive relationship and frequent and continuing contact with the other parent, including physical contact, except where contact will result in harm to the child or to a parent." Id. § 665(b)(5).This factor favored husband. The court found that wife had engaged in a pattern of conduct denigrating husband in front of H.B. Husband also had some level of culpability. The court found it clear, however, that wife continued to express negative opinions about husband in front of H.B. and address matters with H.B. that were more properly raised directly with husband.
The court then considered "the quality of the child's relationship with the primary care provider, if appropriate given the child's age and development." Id. § 665(b)(6). It found that the H.B. had spent the majority of overnights with wife and noted that husband did not seriously dispute wife's assertion that she was the primary caregiver. The court found that H.B. was experiencing anxiety due to this divorce and that her young age and the parties' record of care was relevant to this factor. It determined that this factor favored wife.
Turning to the remaining factors, the court found no evidence that other family members played a substantial role in H.B.'s life. It considered the parties' "ability and disposition to communicate, cooperate with each other, and make joint decisions concerning the child[] where parental rights and responsibilities were to be shared or divided." Id. § 665(b)(8). It found that the parties demonstrated no meaningful ability to communicate, cooperate, or make joint decisions regarding the child. It found that this factor favored neither parent. Finally, it found no significant evidence of abuse during the relationship and no evidence of abuse of H.B. See id. § 665(b)(9).
Based on its evaluation of these factors, the court concluded that wife should have primary legal rights and responsibilities. It found that wife had been primarily exercising these rights and responsibilities since H.B.'s birth and concluded that it was in H.B.'s best interests that wife continue to do so. The court reached the same conclusion as to physical rights and responsibilities, reiterating its conclusion that wife had been the primary caregiver and had been exercising these rights for H.B.
Turning to visitation, the court noted that it was limited by the reality of wife's decision to move a substantial distance from the marital home. That prevented the court from issuing a week-on/week-off schedule that would be in the child's best interests. Given the unavailability of that schedule, among other considerations, the court awarded PCC to husband two weekends per month with a week-on/week-off during the summer vacations; it also equalized vacation schedules.
B. Husband's Arguments on Appeal
With respect to the court's PRR award, husband argues that the court failed to consider all of the evidence or adequately explain its decision. He focuses on the court's determination that wife was the primary caretaker. Husband argues that the parties parented the child equally after their separation until wife began to interfere with his PCC. He asserts that, in evaluating this factor, the court failed to acknowledge that wife unilaterally gave herself the majority of overnights with the child through wrongful actions and willful contempt of the court's orders. Husband recounts wife's relocations and her enrollment of the child in a preschool without notice to him. He maintains that the court gave too much weight to this factor. Husband further argues that he is a competent and involved parent and that wife has demonstrated her parental unfitness. He expresses concern that wife will continue to try to alienate the child from him. He maintains that the court should have found that many of the best-interest factors favored him and it should have made a finding of abuse under 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(9).
"When considering the trial court's analysis and decision in awarding parental rights and responsibilities, this Court applies a highly deferential standard of review." Hanson-Metayer v. Hanson-Metayer, 2013 VT 29, ¶ 12, 193 Vt. 490; see also LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 2014 VT 65, ¶ 21, 197 Vt. 17 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial