Root v. Root
Annotate this Case
Root v. Root (2004-015); 178 Vt. 634; 882 A.2d 1202
2005 VT 93
[Filed 02-Aug-05]
ENTRY ORDER
2005 VT 93
SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-015
FEBRUARY TERM, 2005
Susan Connal Root } APPEALED FROM:
}
v. } Rutland Family Court
}
A. Kenneth Root }
} DOCKET NO. 463-10-97 Rddm
Trial Judge: Patricia Zimmerman
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
¶ 1. Mother appeals from the family court's order finding her in
contempt and modifying father's spousal maintenance obligation. We affirm
the court's contempt finding but reverse its modification order.
¶ 2. Mother and father divorced in February 2000 after
approximately sixteen years of marriage. Mother was awarded sole legal and
physical parental rights and responsibilities for the parties' four minor
children. Father was granted liberal parent-child contact. The final
divorce order required that the parties mediate any disputes involving the
parent-child contact schedule. At the time of their divorce, both parties
resided in Killington, Vermont. Father was employed as a sales associate
with Killington Valley Real Estate; mother had not worked outside the home
for approximately thirteen years.
¶ 3. The parties had significant marital debt as well as several
income-producing assets. One such asset was a parcel of property, referred
to as the Bigelow Drive property, which contained both commercial and
residential space. At the time of the final divorce order, Alan Neveu was
operating a ski rental shop in the commercial space and paying $1298 in
monthly rent. Mr. Neveu was also paying the parties approximately $2700
per month on a promissory note, which was to be paid in full on November
30, 2000.
¶ 4. Father was ordered to pay mother monthly rehabilitative
maintenance between December 1, 2000 and December 31, 2005 as follows:
$1500 directly from father; $1298 in commercial rent from the Bigelow Drive
property; and $450 in rent for an apartment at the Bigelow Drive property.
The court stated that father could keep any increase in rental income from
these properties but conversely, should the rental incomes decline, he
remained obligated to pay the amounts set forth in the order. The court
indicated its expectation that father's income would increase during this
five-year period and mother would obtain wage-producing income.
¶ 5. In August 2001, mother relocated to Connecticut with the
children without consulting father. Father filed an emergency motion to
compel mother to comply with the parent-child contact schedule set forth in
the final divorce order, and he asked the court to hold mother in contempt
for deliberately violating the order. Mother then filed a motion to
enforce father's outstanding spousal maintenance obligation and to hold him
in contempt. Father responded with a motion to modify his maintenance
obligation, asserting that he no longer had the ability to pay
rehabilitative maintenance as set forth in the final divorce order.
¶ 6. Father made the following arguments in support of his motion
to modify. At the time of the final divorce hearing, the Bigelow Drive
commercial premises had been rented to Alan Neveu for $1298 per month.
Father believed that Mr. Neveu would renew the lease but Mr. Neveu did not
do so, and the lease expired on November 30, 2000. By that time, it was
too late to rent the premises to another tenant so father reinstituted the
ski rental business and ran it himself through the winter of 2000-2001.
Although the ski rental business produced revenues, it barely broke even.
As a result, father had not received rent for the commercial premises, and
his revenues from the ski business were insufficient to pay the rental
equivalent portion of his maintenance obligation that had previously been
paid by Mr. Neveu. The abandonment of the ski rental business by its
former tenant was unanticipated by father, and it constituted a real,
substantial, and unanticipated financial change since the final divorce
order. Father also maintained that because of a downturn in the real
estate market, he had fewer commissions available to him, which also
constituted a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances.
¶ 7. After four days of hearings, the court issued an order
finding mother in contempt and reducing father's maintenance obligation.
As to the first issue, the court explained that under the terms of the
parties' final divorce order, father had been granted visitation every
other weekend, and on Monday and Wednesday evenings, with an overnight stay
on Wednesdays. The order also provided that the children could telephone
either parent as they wished. Mother left Vermont with the children in
August 2001; she did not discuss her move with father beforehand, she did
not file a motion to modify the parent-child contact order, and she did not
engage in mediation as required by the divorce order. The court rejected
mother's assertion that she had made a last-minute decision to relocate,
finding her testimony not credible. The court found that Judge Cohen had
ordered mother to comply with the existing contact order at an August 2001
hearing, where mother participated by telephone. Mother did not comply
with the contact order, however, and father was routinely unable to parent
the children on a regular schedule without court intervention. Mother also
put a block on her telephone, which prevented the children from calling
father.
¶ 8. In reaching its conclusion, the court recognized the
financial realities that had precipitated mother's move, but it found that
this did not provide a basis for mother to relocate without first
addressing how father would exercise his right to parent the children. The
court explained that the parties' final divorce order had contemplated that
mother would attempt to subvert father's parenting of the children, which
was why the order included a mediation provision. The final order also
contained a detailed parenting schedule to limit the need for any
"negotiation" between the parties. The court concluded that mother was
aware of the terms of the final divorce order and its parent-child contact
provisions, and she had intentionally prevented father from parenting the
children in accordance with that schedule. The court also found that
mother was aware of Judge Cohen's verbal order directing that parent-child
contact would continue as set forth in the final order and she had
intentionally violated that order as well. The court found that mother's
actions constituted clear and substantial violations, and it therefore
found her in contempt.
¶ 9. The court also granted father's motion to modify spousal
maintenance after finding that there had been a real, substantial, and
unanticipated change in father's financial circumstances since the final
divorce order. The court explained that a partial source of father's
maintenance payment had been rental payments from Mr. Neveu, and this
income source had ceased in November 2000 when Mr. Neveu failed to renew
his lease. The court stated that while father had taken over the ski
rental business from Mr. Neveu, he had not had sufficient time to market it
during the 2000-2001 season and the business had broken even. The court
also found that the final divorce order contemplated that father's income
from real estate commissions would increase over the five-year period of
rehabilitative maintenance, and the evidence showed that his income from
the real estate business had decreased in 2001. The court noted that the
final divorce order also contemplated that mother would obtain outside
employment to supplement her income. The court found that mother had not
made any effort to obtain job skills while living in Vermont, and she
continued to assert that she could not parent and work at the same time.
¶ 10. As to father's income, the court made the following specific
findings. Father's gross income in 2000 was $53,717, $45,000 of which was
from real estate commissions. In 2001, father received approximately
$29,500 in real estate commissions. Relying on an exhibit prepared by
father, the court found that father had received $16,000 in net income from
his ski rental business between June 2001 and April 2002. The court
concluded that father had less income than he did in 1999 because the
promissory note payments from Mr. Neveu had ceased. As noted above, the
court also found that the income from the commercial rental of the Bigelow
Drive property had ceased in November 2000. Adopting a May 2001 finding by
a magistrate, which was made in connection with child-support proceedings,
the court concluded that father's current income from all sources was
approximately $4300 per month. After reviewing father's expenses, the
court concluded that father had the financial ability to pay $850 per month
in rehabilitative maintenance. The court also retroactively reduced
father's maintenance obligation by $1298 per month between March 2001 and
January 2003, which represented the commercial rent from the Bigelow Drive
property; and it reduced father's $1500 per month payment to $850 as of
April 2001. Mother appealed.
¶ 11. We first address mother's challenge to the court's contempt
finding. Mother maintains that she should not have been found in contempt
of Judge Cohen's verbal order because she was not present at the hearing
and she had no knowledge of the order. She also argues that it was
physically and financially impossible for her to comply with the
parent-child contact provisions of the final order, and the court therefore
erred in finding her in contempt.
¶ 12. Contempt proceedings in family court are governed by 15
V.S.A. § 603 and Rule 16 of the Vermont Rules for Family Proceedings. The
family court may hold a parent in contempt if it finds a clear and
substantial violation of a court order. V.R.F.P. 16(b)(1), (5). We will
reverse an order of contempt only if it is shown on appeal that the court
abused its discretion by issuing the order. Hunt v. Hunt, 162 Vt. 423,
436, 648 A.2d 843, 853 (1994). The court did not abuse its discretion
here.
¶ 13. First, mother's assertion that the court held her in contempt
of the interim order misconstrues the clear language of the order being
appealed. The court found mother in contempt of the final divorce order as
well as Judge Cohen's interim order. Mother claims that there is no
support in the record for the court's finding that she was present at the
hearing before Judge Cohen, and therefore she didn't know about the order.
We agree that mother must have had knowledge of the order to be in contempt
of it. Lyon v. Lyon, 143 Vt. 458, 461, 466 A.2d 1186, 1188 (1983). But
any error in the court's finding regarding mother's presence at the hearing
is harmless. Judge Cohen's order simply reiterated mother's preexisting
obligation under the final divorce order, which mother concedes that she
did not follow, claiming that it was impossible for her to do so. Thus,
even if the court erred in finding mother present at the hearing before
Judge Cohen, she was still in contempt of the final order. We will not
reverse when, as here, the court commits an error that is harmless.
V.R.C.P. 61.
¶ 14. We are equally unpersuaded by mother's second claim of error.
The court rejected as not credible mother's reasons for her noncompliance
with the final divorce order. Mother claimed that she could not follow the
order due to her "forced" move to Greenwich. The court found that mother's
move was a wilful violation of the order and that she never sought to
modify it before removing the children from Vermont. The court also found
her in contempt of the order by not engaging in mediation before moving out
of the state. The court explained that the "Final Order envisioned
continuing attempts by [mother] to subvert [father's] parenting of the
children which necessitated the inclusion of a mediation clause." The
mediation provision was an important part of the final order and was put in
place in anticipation that mother would engage in the type of obstructive
behavior giving rise to the order at issue here.
¶ 15. The court was also unpersuaded by mother's claim that she was
completely unable to comply with the order on parent-child contact due to
her financial circumstances, which she claimed were all father's fault.
The family court disagreed with mother's characterization of her
circumstances, and explicitly found that she lacked credibility. Mother's
credibility was a matter for the trial court's consideration, and we do not
review it. Kanaan v. Kanaan, 163 Vt. 402, 405, 659 A.2d 128, 131 (1995)
(recognizing that trial court "is in a unique position to assess the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence presented").
We note that in the final divorce order, the findings of which the court
adopted as part of the order at issue here, the court found that after the
divorce, mother would not be able to continue being a full-time parent with
no outside earned income. The court expected that mother would make
efforts to find employment to supplement the temporary spousal maintenance
she received from father. In the contempt order, the court found no
evidence that mother made any efforts to become employed while in Vermont,
and further found that, notwithstanding the findings in the final order of
divorce, mother continued to assert that she could not work and parent at
the same time. We find no abuse of the court's discretion in holding
mother in contempt of the parent-child contact order because she did not
convince the court that her move was "forced."
¶ 16. Mother next argues that as the sole legal and physical
custodian of the children, she had an absolute right to move where she
wanted irrespective of father's right to parent-child contact. She also
maintains that a remand is necessary so that the family court can revisit
the issue of parental rights and responsibilities in light of her move.
These arguments are without merit. First, our precedents do not give
mother an absolute right to live wherever she wants if doing so makes it
impossible for father to exercise his rights to parent the children. See,
e.g., deBeaumont v. Goodrich, 162 Vt. 91, 99, 103, 644 A.2d 843, 848, 850
(1994) (explaining that primary custodian's decision to move should be
given deference but upholding family court's decision to transfer primary
custody of children to parent residing in Vermont after other parent moved
out of state). Mother's second argument is somewhat confusing in view of
the court's order on the parent-child contact issue. The family court did
revisit parental rights and responsibilities by modifying the terms of
father's contact with the children. Mother may be dissatisfied with the
terms of the new provisions, but she has not presented an argument that the
terms are unwarranted. In fact, her argument ignores what the court
actually did after the four days of hearings on the parties' motions.
There is no basis for a remand on this issue.
¶ 17. Finally, mother challenges the court's order modifying
father's spousal maintenance obligation. She argues that the court erred
in finding that the commercial rental income for the Bigelow Drive property
ceased in November 2000. She also asserts that the court failed to
properly assess father's income.
¶ 18. The family court has discretion when deciding a motion to
modify maintenance under 15 V.S.A. § 758. Stickney v. Stickney, 170 Vt.
547, 548-49, 742 A.2d 1228, 1231 (1999) (mem.). The court must find "a
real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances" before
revisiting the amount of rehabilitative maintenance to award the recipient
spouse. Id. at 548, 742 A.2d at 1231 (quoting 15 V.S.A. § 758). An order
modifying maintenance may be set aside on appeal "only when there is no
reasonable basis to support it." Id. at 549, 742 A.2d at 1231. As
discussed below, the court's findings relating to father's income are not
supported by the evidence, and we therefore reverse its order.
¶ 19. First, the family court erred in concluding that the income
from the commercial rental of the Bigelow Drive property, which was owed to
mother under the terms of the final divorce order, became unavailable after
November 2000 when Mr. Neveu failed to renew his lease. A business income
statement prepared by father shows that father's business, ARK
Transportation, Inc., paid $30,000 to rent the Bigelow Drive property
between June 2001 and April 2002. Not only are these payments reflected on
father's own income statement, but father also testified to this effect at
the hearing; he acknowledged receiving the rental payments at oral argument
before this Court; and his bank statements reflect rent payments from his
business to himself. The family court relied on father's income statement
in finding that father's net income from the ski rental business between
June 2001 and April 2002 was approximately $16,000, but it failed to
explain why the rental payments reflected on this same exhibit should not
be considered as income to father, nor why father should be excused from
paying this rent over to mother consistent with the terms of the final
divorce order. (FN1)
¶ 20. Compounding this mistake, the family court also erred in
calculating father's income. The court found that father had a monthly
income from all sources of approximately $4300, adopting a magistrate's May
2001 finding to this effect. The final hearing before the family court was
conducted almost one year after the magistrate made her finding, however,
and evidence was presented to the family court regarding father's current
financial situation, which included income that father received from his
ski rental business. The magistrate's income figure, by its own terms, did
not include any such income. The magistrate found that in 2000, father
received an average commission from real estate sales of $5,033.64 per
month, or $60,403.68 per year. After deducting business expenses, the
magistrate found that father's business income was $4317.26 per month, or
$51,804 per year. This figure expressly did not include $14,000 in
additional commissions that father anticipated receiving in November and
December 2000, nor did it reflect any income that father received from
operating the ski shop. The magistrate explained that father had recently
opened the ski shop, and he claimed that the business was barely breaking
even. The magistrate also noted that father had not brought any of the
books or records for the business to the child-support hearing.
¶ 21. Based on the undisputed evidence presented at the modification
hearing, and excluding the $11,074 in depreciation expenses cited by father
in his business income statement (which father acknowledges was a paper
expense rather than a real cash expense), father's current income appears
to exceed $6641 per month or $79,692 per year. Father received
approximately $16,000 in profit from the ski rental business between June
2001 and April 2002, (FN2) or approximately $1444 per month; (FN3) he
received $2727 per month in commercial rent for the Bigelow Drive property;
and in 2001, according to his tax return, father made $29,635 in real
estate commissions, or approximately $2470 per month. Based on this
evidence, the family court committed clear error in finding that father had
a monthly income from all sources of approximately $4300. Father had no
less income at the time of the modification hearing than he had at the time
of the final divorce order; indeed, it appears that he had at least as much
or more. (FN4) Father was receiving more in commercial rent for the Bigelow
Drive property than he received from Mr. Neveu ($2727 per month instead of
$1298 per month) and in additional to his real estate commissions, he was
making a profit from his ski business of at least $16,000. The family
court's modification order is based on erroneous findings as to father's
ability to pay, and we therefore reverse its order.
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissenting
¶ 22. SKOGLUND, J., dissenting. I write to express my disagreement
with the majority's decision to reverse the family court's judgment on
spousal maintenance. My disagreement stems from the majority's application
of the wrong standard of review. The decision at issue here is a
discretionary one that does not require the kind of mathematical exactitude
that the majority demands. I would affirm the family court's judgment
because the record firmly supports its decision to modify father's spousal
maintenance obligation.
¶ 23. An erroneous ruling by the trial court has never been enough
to justify reversal of a judgment in this Court. Reversal is permissible
only when the claimed error is not harmless. V.R.C.P. 61; see V.R.F.P.
4(a)(1) (making the harmless error standard in V.R.C.P. 61 applicable to
divorce proceedings in family court). In the case of spousal maintenance
decisions, reversible error occurs when the family court's decision lacks
any reasonable support in the record. Stickney v. Stickney, 170 Vt. 547,
549, 742 A.2d 1228, 1231 (1999) (mem.); Delozier v. Delozier, 161 Vt. 377,
381, 640 A.2d 55, 57 (1994). Therefore, clearly erroneous findings may be
set aside on appeal, but they do not necessarily require reversal if the
judgment has other support in the record. See, e.g., In re A.F., 160 Vt.
175, 178, 624 A.2d 867, 869 (1993) (affirming a family court decision
notwithstanding clearly erroneous findings where other supported findings
were sufficient to sustain the judgment). Mother, the appellant here, has
not demonstrated that the family court's decision to modify father's
maintenance obligation has no reasonable support in the record. Therefore,
no grounds to reverse exist.
¶ 24. The family court may modify an award of spousal maintenance
upon a showing of real, unanticipated, and substantial change in
circumstances. 15 V.S.A. § 758; Taylor v. Taylor, 175 Vt. 32, 36, 819 A.2d 684, 688 (2002). The threshold change-of-circumstances determination, like
the determination on the merits of modification, is discretionary. Taylor,
175 Vt. at 36, 819 A.2d at 688. When addressing the
change-of-circumstances requirement, the family court should consider both
the parties' circumstances at the time of the final divorce and their
present circumstances. Gil v. Gil, 151 Vt. 598, 599, 563 A.2d 624, 625
(1989).
¶ 25. In this case, the family court found that mother's
circumstances had changed since the final divorce order. The court
explained that it based the original spousal maintenance award on
recognition of mother's role as "primary care giver for the children, the
amount of time she was out of the job market, [and] the need to maintain
stability for the children by remaining in Vermont." The court found that
the parties' income had declined during the course of the marriage and they
had accumulated substantial debt. Mother, the court found, "could not
afford to not seek employment" after the divorce. The court's stated goal
in awarding rehabilitative maintenance was to give mother sufficient time
to acquire job skills. Notwithstanding the reality that mother would need
to find post-divorce employment, the court found no evidence that mother
had done anything toward obtaining skills or employment before moving from
Vermont to Connecticut.
¶ 26. On the issue of mother's financial circumstances, the family
court found that there was no evidence that mother had any expenses now
that she lives in Connecticut with her mother. She does not pay any rent
and does not contribute to the household expenses. Mother testified that
she receives income-nearly $20,000 in a lump-sum payment-from renting her
home in Killington, Vermont. The court found that she could continue to
rent the home because she had no intention of moving back to live in it,
and, although she has over $100,000 in equity in the home, mother does not
plan to sell it. Notably, the court also found that mother's unanticipated
move caused father to incur an additional monthly expense of $350 for
travel to see the children. The court concluded that mother's "relocation,
her continuing inability to obtain some type of salary income, her decrease
in expenses, and access to a job market that should provide her with more
opportunity [amounted to] a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of
circumstances . . . since the issuance of the Final Order." In focusing
solely on the family court's findings of father's income, the majority's
decision overlooks this well-supported analysis of changed circumstances.
(FN5)
¶ 27. The family court's decision on whether and how much to alter
father's spousal support obligation is similarly supported by the record.
The majority's criticism of the family court's analysis of the evidence on
father's income amounts to appellate fact finding. The majority's decision
reviews the evidence and finds that father's present annual income is
approximately $79,692. It was the family court, however, that heard the
parties' testimony on the financial exhibits in evidence and it was up to
that court, not this one, to assess the credibility and weight of the
evidence before it. LaMoria v. LaMoria, 171 Vt. 559, 561, 762 A.2d 1233, 1236 (2000) (mem.). There are other ways to view the evidence that the
parties presented to the family court.
¶ 28. The family court had several exhibits before it relating to
father's income at different points in time since the final divorce.
Father's year-2000 federal tax return showed a gross income of $53,717.
His 2001 tax return was not in evidence, however. For calendar year 2001,
father earned $29,500 in real estate commissions according to his federal
1099 tax form. According to cancelled checks and bank statements from
father's ski business, father paid himself $15,400 in rent in calendar year
2001, not $30,000 as the majority finds. The $30,000 figure the majority
cites comes from a single exhibit purporting to show the income earned by
the ski business for the eleven month period ending April 30, 2002. Father
testified, however, that he does not collect rent all year long and that he
pays the business's overhead from the rent when the ski shop closes after
the ski season. Between father's 2001 real estate commissions and the
rental income from the ski business, the evidence establishes that father
earned a total of approximately $44,500 in calendar year 2001-the most
recent and complete year of financial information relating to father in the
record.
¶ 29. The majority opinion arrives at a much higher annual income by
combining income received during different and sometimes overlapping time
periods. (FN6) In doing so, the majority makes assumptions from the
evidence about father's earnings that the family court was not willing to
make. In addition, the majority's findings on father's income includes
$16,000 in "profit" from the ski business. (FN7) Father testified,
however, that his only real profit from the business was the rental income
he paid himself. It is not clear from the record evidence that father
reaped a meaningful financial benefit from the ski business over and above
the rental payments he made. The business's federal tax return for the tax
year beginning June 1, 2000 and ending May 31, 2001 shows taxable income or
profit of $12,664. That figure is less than the $16,000 in "profit" the
majority cites, relying on the eleventh-month income statement ending April
2002. (FN8) But even assuming that father earned $16,000 in profit in
calendar year 2001, the record shows that, at most, father earned $60,000
or $5000 per month in 2001.
¶ 30. The family court attempted to sort out the financial
information and ultimately concluded that "[f]or the purposes of child
support and for [the order on modification], [father's] income from all
sources is determined at $4,300 per month." Contrary to the majority's
characterization otherwise, the family court did not find that father's
income was, in fact, $4,300. Rather, the court used that figure as a proxy
considering the confusing state of the financial evidence before it, and
the magistrate's findings on father's income were never appealed. I cannot
conclude as the majority does that the family court's approach to
calculating the maintenance due mother exceeded the court's broad
discretion in this area.
¶ 31. The mathematical precision the majority's decision requires
has no basis in the spousal maintenance statute or our cases interpreting
it. Unlike child support, spousal support calculations and their
components are not legislatively prescribed. Compare 15 V.S.A. § 752(b)
(setting forth non-exhaustive list of relevant factors for family court to
consider when establishing the amount and duration of spousal maintenance)
with id. §§ 650-657 (defining elements and method of child support
calculation), and Chaker v. Chaker, 155 Vt. 20, 25, 581 A.2d 737, 740
(1990) (interpreting the nonexclusive factors in 15 V.S.A. § 752(b) and
noting that maintenance award would stand on appeal unless no reasonable
basis exists to support it) with Grimes v. Grimes, 159 Vt. 399, 406, 621 A.2d 211, 215 (1992) (explaining that the child support guideline system
presumes that the support award will be based on the guideline calculation
absent finding of inequity). Moreover, this Court has cautioned that it is
rarely acceptable to base a maintenance award solely on the obligor's
income. Delozier v. Delozier, 161 Vt. 377, 385, 640 A.2d 55, 59 (1994).
The majority's preoccupation with the family court's findings on father's
income is unwarranted given our prior holdings on spousal maintenance
awards.
¶ 32. For the foregoing reasons, I must respectfully dissent from
the majority's decision to reverse the family court's judgment on father's
spousal maintenance obligation.
Dissenting: BY THE COURT:
______________________________________ _________________________________
Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
_________________________________
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice
_________________________________
Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice
(Ret.), Specially Assigned
_________________________________
Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate
Justice (Ret.) Specially Assigned
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
FN1. Father's exhibit 22 covers the period between June 2001 and April 2002
and shows rental payments made during this time. Father also ran the ski
shop during the winter of 2000-2001. It is unclear if father paid mother
$1298 in commercial rent between December 2000 and May 2001, although it
appears that he did not. It is also unclear if father received commercial
rent from his business during this period.
FN3. Presumably, these figures should be adjusted to reflect profits over a
twelve-month period rather than the eleven-month period reflected on
father's exhibit.
FN4. Father did not provide an accounting for his business profits from the
ski rental business between December 2000 and May 2001, although his
corporate tax return for the period between June 2000 and May 2001
indicates that the business had gross income of $69,121.
FN4. We note that in calculating husband's maintenance obligation, the
final divorce order contemplated that the promissory note payments from Mr.
Neveu would end in November 2000.
FN5. The majority's opinion does not make clear whether it is reversing the
change-of-circumstances determination, the decision on the merits of
modification, or both.
FN6. The majority's findings on father's income relies on the 2001 calendar
year real estate commissions, profit the ski business earned from June 2001
to April 2002, plus rental income purportedly collected from June 2001
through April 2002.
FN7. The majority refers to the depreciation expense on the business's
income statement as a "paper expense" that does not reflect cash,
suggesting that father has additional cash available to him. Depreciation
is a real expense normally included in a business's income statement even
if it does not represent actual cash outlays. D. Edward Martin, Attorney's
Handbook of Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting ¶ 4.05[1][a], at
4-23 to -24 (4th ed. 2003). It reflects the cost of goods sold where a
portion of the cost is determined to benefit future years. Id. ¶ 4.04[1],
at 4-18.
FN8. It is unclear from the record whether father personally realized the
profit from the ski rental business. As the Financial Accounting Standards
Board has noted, the relation between profit of a business and compensation
received by the business's owners "is complex and often indirect." FASB,
Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 6, ¶ 16 (Dec. 1985).
"Profitable operations generate resources that can be distributed to owners
or reinvested in the enterprise . . . ." Id. Father testified that he
used the rental payments from the business to pay for fixed expenses during
the off season. The record lacks testimony as to how and if father paid
himself the profit the majority attributes to him.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
