Felis v. Felis
72 A.3d 874
Vt.2013Background
- Husband (58) and wife (57) married in 1978; separated in 2006; final divorce order issued December 2011.
- Five children; youngest son, age 13 at time of final order; wife homemaker, husband businessman with at least $9M assets.
- Marital estate valued around $9M, including two closely-held businesses, real estate, and a multi-million-dollar marital home.
- Family court, after extensive testimony, awarded wife sole parental rights over the youngest son, with husband having contact every other weekend to Monday morning; wife ~57% and husband ~43% of the estate; wife receive $1/year maintenance.
- Disputes centered on (a) parent-child contact, (b) the marital-property division, and (c) maintenance and attorney’s fees; issues also included dissipation of assets and allocation of litigation costs.
- The court entered findings and a 64-page decision in 2011, denied new-trial motions, then issued a final order reflecting the above allocations and awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dissipation doctrine applicability to assets prior to final order | Felis argues expenditures (loans to girlfriend, secretary payment) should be counted against him. | Felis claims expenditures may be dissipation or properly accounted under prior rulings; court misapplied precedent. | Court erred by treating expenditures as dissipation without proper findings; remand for correct asset valuation. |
| Whether the property division properly reflected dissipation and asset valuation | Assets were misvalued; expenditures should reduce marital assets available for distribution. | Court has broad discretion; considering dissipation permissible with proper findings. | Partial reversal of property award; remand for proper application of dissipation rule and asset valuation. |
| Whether the parent-child contact order was abuse of discretion | Contact schedule should mirror temporary order to protect stability. | Court adopted a schedule balancing best interests and transitions; within discretion. | Parent-child contact order affirmed. |
| Whether nominal maintenance is appropriate given large property award | Maintenance not needed; wife already protected by property award. | Nominal maintenance preserves potential modification for future changes in circumstances. | Nominal maintenance affirmed; modification possible only upon substantial change in circumstances. |
| Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses allocation | Wife incurred substantial fees; overall award should reflect actual costs borne by husband. | Court has discretion to award reasonable fees; "off the top" allocations permissible. | Award affirmed as reasonable within discretion; remand to adjust any miscalculation related to earlier payments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clayton v. Clayton, 153 Vt. 138 (Vt. 1989) (dissipation doctrine—transfers to reduce marital assets may be included in estate for distribution)
- Jenike v. Jenike, 2004 VT 83 (Vt. 2004) (limits on dissipation; review of investment decisions for prudent management)
- Gershman v. Gershman, 943 A.2d 1091 (Conn. 2008) (dissipation requires financial misconduct and improper purpose)
- Wall v. Moore, 167 Vt. 580 (Vt. 1997) (considering assets transferred to defeat distribution; freezes and asset treatment)
- Soutiere v. Soutiere, 163 Vt. 265 (Vt. 1995) (include property placed in others’ names to avoid distribution)
- Nevitt v. Nevitt, 155 Vt. 391 (Vt. 1990) (include transfers to deprive spouse of fair share)