Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Donna Mae Peck appealed a superior court judgment that granted plaintiff Victor Shattuck a writ of possession for the parties' former residence in Cavendish and that denied her counterclaim for an equitable interest in the Cavendish property and another former residence in Springfield. Between December 1997 and June 1999, plaintiff purchased two adjoining parcels of land in Cavendish. He made most of the payments for the first parcel, but defendant made a significant financial contribution toward payment of the second parcel. In 2001, plaintiff conveyed the Cavendish properties to himself and defendant as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, and defendant conveyed the Springfield property to herself and plaintiff as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The parties lived together in Cavendish until June 2010, when plaintiff decided to end their relationship. Following an angry confrontation, defendant obtained a relief-from-abuse order against plaintiff and was awarded sole possession of the Cavendish property. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in superior court seeking to evict defendant from the Cavendish property. Defendant answered and counterclaimed, alleging that the Cavendish and Springfield properties were the subject of a partnership agreement between the parties. Alleging that she had been induced to convey the Springfield properties by plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentations, she also sought equitable relief through imposition of a resulting or constructive trust. She later claimed that the Cavendish property was also held in a constructive trust for her benefit. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court: "pursuant to the principles of equity, not every unmarried cohabitant who confers an economic benefit on his or her partner is entitled to payback if the relationship ends. In this case, defendant may or may not ultimately be entitled to restitution, whether in the form of a constructive trust or a money judgment, for her substantial investments in the Cavendish and Springfield properties, and any such judgment could well be subject to offsets for benefits received." View "Shattuck v. Peck" on Justia Law

Mother appealed a CHINS decision by the superior court based on a finding that she repeatedly induced the child to make false allegations of abuse against father. On appeal, Mother contended the judgment was unsupported because there was no evidence or finding that the allegations of abuse were the product of intentional coaching or mental illness. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the superior court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re M.A." on Justia Law

A Mother appealed a superior court's decision that terminated her parental rights to her son, D.C. D.C. spent the first years of his life with both parents, who at the time were not married. When his parents separated, the father took D.C. to stay with him. Although a child-custody order granted mother parental rights, she allowed father to take the child because she had difficulty finding a residence, and she knew that father had the support of his mother in caring for D.C. This arrangement lasted for a few years longer when mother obtained police help to assert her custodial rights to D.C. Mother moved into a motel with D.C., and the Department for Children and Families (DCF) petitioned that D.C. was a child in need of care due to a lack of proper parental care. The affidavit in support of the petition stated that: (1) five years earlier mother’s parental rights had been terminated with respect to an older child because of unsafe and unsanitary living conditions and the child’s exposure to the risk of being sexually abused; (2) mother had a relationship with a known, untreated sex offender who had been seen frequently with mother at her motel room; (3) the motel room was filthy and unsanitary; (4) D.C. was suffering from an untreated respiratory illness; and (5) school officials had reported D.C. arriving at school hungry and not dressed properly for the cold. On appeal, mother argued that the termination order is invalid because the court failed to: (1) consider whether the State had met its burden of showing changed circumstances, which was required because the State’s termination petition sought modification of the initial disposition order; (2) determine by clear and convincing evidence that mother was presently unfit to care for D.C.; and (3) find that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of D.C. from his home. Finding that the record supported the family court’s undisputed findings that during the lengthy period when mother played a limited role in D.C.’s life and agreed to other family members assuming custody of the child, she made no progress in reaching a point where she could care for the child.  The Court concluded that Mother could not challenge the TPR order through a belated claim that DCF failed to make reasonable efforts to prevent D.C.’s removal from his home. Accordingly, the Court affirmed termination of Mother's rights. View "In re D.C." on Justia Law

This decision resolved two consolidated appeals related to family division proceedings involving juvenile C.P. First, mother and father appealed termination of their parental rights to their son C.P. Father argued the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the termination proceeding. Mother joined father's jurisdictional argument and contended that the evidence and findings did not support the conclusion that termination was in C.P.'s best interests. Second, father challenged the court's post-termination order striking a sentence of the termination decision, and finding that the Department for Children and Families (DCF) made reasonable efforts toward achieving the permanency plan goal of reunifying C.P. with his parents. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no merit to either of the parents' arguments on appeal and affirmed the trial court's decisions. View "In re C. P." on Justia Law

Mother appealed a final divorce order granting father parental rights and responsibilities for the parties' two children and giving mother parent-child contact in stages beginning with supervised contact with progression through the stages determined by the children’s medical and mental health providers. Mother argued: (1) that the order impermissibly delegated the court's statutory responsibility to determine parent-child contact and parental rights and responsibilities; (2) that the court effectively terminated her parental rights without a finding of parental unfitness supported by clear and convincing evidence; (3) and that the court's findings were inadequate to support the contact provisions. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the order improperly delegated authority over parent-child contact to third parties, and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Engel v. Engel" on Justia Law

Guardian appealed an order of the probate division directing that a court-ordered guardianship evaluation performed by Rutland Mental Health Services, Inc. (RMHS) be placed with the court under seal. Guardian argued that the court exceeded its authority, or abused its discretion to the extent that it had any, in directing RMHS to return the evaluation to the court to be sealed. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's conclusion after review of this case that the probate court had authority to restrict access to the original evaluation, it agreed with guardian that the court abused its discretion as a matter of law in ordering the sealing of this particular evaluation, given the circumstances of the case and the court’s reasoning for doing so. View "In re Guardianship of A.S." on Justia Law

This case arose from a separation agreement made thirty-seven years ago between a now-deceased husband and plaintiff, his first wife. Plaintiff contended that her ex-husband promised to devise to her certain assets upon his death, and she brought various claims for equitable relief against defendant, her ex-husband's second wife, who survived him. The superior court concluded that plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, plaintiff argued that this conclusion was erroneous because, under the governing Massachusetts law, claims based on a contract to make a will do not accrue until the promisor's death. Although the Supreme Court accepted plaintiff's legal premise, it do not accept that it governed this case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. View "Mueller v. Mueller and Joseph F. Mueller Trust" on Justia Law

Wife Maura Breslin appealed a family court order that required her to sign a waiver to correct a previously filed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) which erroneously gave her survivorship benefits in her former husband's pension. The divorce order, fully incorporating the terms of the separation agreement, awarded wife “one half of the pension, as of the date of separation and the [husband] is awarded the remainder." A QDRO signed by wife’s attorney was filed in 2009 to implement the terms of the order. The QDRO mistakenly awarded wife survivorship benefits in husband’s pension, contrary to the divorce order which merely provided wife with one-half of the pension, with remainder to husband. The family division approved the QDRO, and the plan administrator implemented it, which resulted in payments being made to wife. Husband did not object to the submission of the 2009 QDRO, and did not appeal its approval. In 2010, wife and husband jointly filed a new QDRO, which omitted the erroneous section regarding survivorship benefits. The family division approved the QDRO. In January 2011, the plan administrator rejected the QDRO because payments had already begun under the 2009 QDRO. The plan administrator noted that wife could fix this problem by “waiv[ing] away her right” to the survivorship benefits. Husband’s attorney contacted wife’s attorney numerous times between January and March, inquiring as to her position on the waiver issue. Having not heard anything, husband filed a motion to enforce in March 2011. The court held a chambers conference in August 2011, and issued an entry order the same month concluding that wife is not entitled to the survivorship benefits. The court found that the divorce order merely granted wife “a defined, independent right to one half the pension,” while husband was granted his own separate pension rights. The court ordered wife to execute the waiver to restore to husband and his family the sole right to any survivorship benefits. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because the 2009 QDRO purported to modify the underlying property division, it was invalid and not entitled to preclusive effect. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the family court order. View "Breslin v. Synnott" on Justia Law

Margaret Chickansoky (Mother) appealed a family court order that modified her parent-child contact rights. The parties originally agreed to share parental rights and responsibilities as part of a December 2005 divorce order. In 2009, the family court granted, in part, father’s motion to modify the original divorce order by awarding him sole legal parental rights and responsibilities. In July 2010, the family court granted father's second motion to modify based on his planned move to Missouri. The court awarded him legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities, with mother having summertime and vacation parent-child contact. The parties then got into a dispute over mother's unplanned or short-notice visits to Missouri. Following a hearing in July 2011, the court entered a twenty-five page order which clarified and modified parent-child contact. The court found that mother placed her needs ahead of the best interests of daughter, engaged in selfish and unreasonable behavior, has been patently unreasonable, has had "no insight whatsoever" as to why her behavior has caused daughter stress, and has failed to gain insight "as to the devastating impact of her behavior." The court also found that father attempted to relieve daughter's stress and that his "good basic parenting" has allowed daughter to have a "consistent, stable routine." Turning to the best-interests analysis, the court found that daughter's emotional development would be harmed if she spent the whole summer with mother. Thus, the court set forth a specific contact schedule and limited mother’s summertime contact to approximately one month. Mother appealed, arguing that: (1) the court exceeded its jurisdiction and violated her right to due process by issuing an order limiting her summertime contact with daughter insofar as she was never notified that summertime contact would be at issue; (2) father failed to make an adequate showing that there was a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in material circumstances to modify the previous custody order; and (3) the court failed to consider the best-interests factors in further limiting her contact with daughter. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence presented before the family court supported the court’s findings about mother’s unreasonableness and lack of insight, and father’s efforts to minimize daughter's stress, which in turn supported the conclusion that daughter's best interests would be served by limiting mother's summertime contact. View "Chickanosky v. Chickanosky" on Justia Law

The trial court dismissed Wife's post-divorce motion for relief from judgment based on Husband's alleged fraudulent concealment of assets without requiring completion of the discovery sought by wife, and without a hearing. Wife and Husband entered into a stipulated final divorce agreement, approved and incorporated into a final order by the family court. Several months after the parties' divorce became final, Wife filed a motion to set aside the final divorce decree on several grounds, including that husband had not disclosed a bank account. The family court denied the motion, noting that both parties had personal checking accounts opened post-separation from which they paid their bills and neither party had included those accounts in their financial disclosures. The court also concluded that the post-judgment questions raised by Wife's motion were relatively minor in the context of the overall case. Several years later Husband filed a motion to modify spousal maintenance due to an unanticipated decline in his income. In connection with that motion, he produced copies of his bank statements that included for the first time, an account that had his and his sister's names on it--an account he opened and used prior to the divorce stipulation. Wife subsequently filed a motion for contempt and enforcement, arguing that Husband indeed had hidden some accounts from her that were to be used in creating the stipulated divorce agreement. The trial court dismissed her motion. On appeal, Wife challenged the trial court's refusal to hold further hearings several outstanding issues pertaining to the accounts issue. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not err in declining to hear Wife's motion on the Husband's concealment of the last bank account. The Court found that the motion was time-barred. Therefore, if the motion was time barred, it was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion in refusing to hold another hearing on the issues raised in that motion. View "Olio v. Olio" on Justia Law