Following a Summary, linked below are all admitted Exhibits, Transcripts, and various pleadings from the Spaulding case before VT’s Family and then Supreme Court. Access to all pleadings is available here.
* * *
Summary. Among other issues, this divorce action concerns over $100K in litigation costs related to a farm-related Container permit (Case 1) and a Developer who damaged the water line to Husband’s 3-generation family farm (Case 2).
Wife left Husband during the years-long and resource-depleting pendency of Cases 1 and 2, and just days after learning that Husband likely could not conceive children with her. Wife texted others that she loved Husband while surreptitiously emptying the couple’s joint bank account and using other marital assets to move to an Alabama property she’d previously asked Husband to help her buy. Two days before Wife left, her Vermont-based Aunt placed a down payment on the AL property, and less than 2 months later, Wife filed for divorce and Aunt bought the property despite that Aunt never moved there (Wife did). Wife falsely swore in her Complaint that they’d been separated more than the statutorily-required 6 months, and at Trial she fraudulently testified that she’d signed a Settlement Agreement (SA) in Case 2 to stop what was already $100K in still-running litigation costs from it. (Seven months after the separation and two before Trial, Husband paid $15K to settle Case 1; Wife contributed $0).
Later-obtained emails from Wife’s Case 2 Counsel revealed that Wife either never signed the SA or she and he deliberately withheld it as leverage to enable her to claim equity in Husband’s family farm in the divorce. (Exhibit S) After discovering the emails and writing Wife’s Counsel (for Case 2 and for the Divorce) to insist that they inform the divorce judge of Wife’s fraud as RPC 3.3 required of them, Husband’s Counsel informed the divorce judge (Trial Judge Schoonover, “TJS”) of the fraud and of Counsel’s refusal to disclose it per 3.3. TJS declared Wife’s fraud and Counsel’s 3.3 violation “irrelevant” to the divorce despite that Wife had raised the Case 2 costs and her alleged signing of the SA during her direct. TJS also: (1) prevented cross-examination of Wife on this and other matters about which she’d testified direct; (2) required Husband (but not Wife) to support his financial testimony with documents; (3) twice prevented Husband’s elderly mother from testifying though she’d twice traveled from out-of-State to do so; and (4) based her Decision on statements that were not simply erroneous but lacked no basis at all, thus violating her RPC 3.1 duties as an attorney as well as a judge. Further, by not reporting the 3.3 violations of Wife’s Counsel, TJS violated her RPC 8.3 duties as an attorney and her JCR 2.15 duties as a judge. SeeCA RPC 8.3, comment 6 (reporting ethics violations to a judge may trigger separate 8.3 obligations for the judge). Finally, following the close of evidence, TJS denied Husband’s Counsel’s motion withdraw unless the appeal deadline expired without an appeal.
Husband nevertheless appealed, but — for reasons that remain unexplained — the Courts’ Appeal Volume (AV) omits 11 of Husband’s admitted Exhibits (and included all 14 of Wife’s Exhibits though none was admitted). Husband’s Notice of this Incompleteness and Emergency Motion for an Extension of Time to file his Opening Brief remained unaddressed through its Dec. 2 filing deadline and even for 4 weeks afterward, until Dec. 30. At that time, a single Justice (Associate Justice Waples, or “AJW”) issued an Order essentially ignoring all of the issues raised in the Husband’s Notice and Motion and directed Husband to file a second Brief by Jan. 29 or forgo the appeal. Husband’s Jan. 29 Brief identified not only the due process issues raised by TJS’s rulings but also those of AJW and noted that, under the Court’s Rules, both judges must disqualify themselves.
EXHIBITS:
Husband’s Listand admitted Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P- 15, Q,Q-3, Q-6, S, T, V, X, Y
Wife’s List and admitted Exhibits (none admitted).
TRANSCRIPTS: 2025-04-15, 2025-07-21, 2025-09-03
PLEADINGS
2025-07-10 Wife’s Motion for Permission to Testify Remotely
2025-07-11 Husband’s Response to Wife’s July 10 Motion and Counsel’s Notice of Limited Appearance.
2025-07-22 TJS Order scheduling Day 2 of Evidentiary Hearing for Sept. 3 at 1pm
2025-09-03 TJS Order confirming Sept. 3 in-Court admission of all of Husband’s Exhibits
2025-09-04 Husband’s Counsel Motion to Withdraw (attaching emails showing Wife’s Counsel rejection of 7 requests to negotiate and ABA & VBA Guidelines on settlement and civility).
2025-09-10 TJS Decision (from which appeal was taken)
2025-09-11 TJS Order denying Sept. 4 Motion to Withdraw
2025-10-15 Court Transmission Report, stating incorrectly that Husband had not paid appeal fee
2025-10-23 Court Notice Stating (incorrectly) that Appeal Volume Is Complete
2025-10-30 Court’s second Transmission Rept., correcting Oct. 15 Rept. and back-dated to Oct. 15)
*2025-10-31 emails from Wife’s Case 2 Counsel showing Wife had not still produced Wife’s SA signature page (this document is *asterisked because it is not part of the appeal record (having not been generated until after the close of evidence). The emails are shown here because they show the expanded harm from the Exhibit S-identified fraud and related ethics violations).
2025-11-03 SCOV (AJW) Order rejecting idea of Amicus input absent Motion for same (despite that SCOV had sought such input sua sponte in 2014 VT 7, the only other RPC 3.1 case it has had).
2025-11-07 SCOV (AJW) Order denying Husband’s Nov. 4 Motion as to Costs (and directing that it be brought to TJS despite that: (1) TJS was already conflicted; and (2) such a filing risked “ripeness” arguments used by same Superior Court to avoid for years appellate review of dispositive legal issues in Riley).
2025-12-01 Husband’s (1) Notice that AV is Incomplete, & (2) Emergency Motion for Extension of Time (supplemented Dec. 1 & Dec. 2)
2025-12-02 Husband’s (original) Opening Brief (replaced Jan. 29, per AJW’s Dec. 30 Order).
2025-12-04 AJW Order on Dec. 1 Notice & Motion (ignoring Motion for Extension of Dec. 2 deadline; requiring Husband (but not Wife) to provide transcript citations to prove his Exhibits’ admission; and leaving unanswered why Wife’s Exhibits were in Record despite that none had been admitted, and whether Husband would nonetheless need to address Wife’s non-admitted Exhibits in Husband’s final Brief.
2025-12-11 Husband’s Reply to AJW’s Dec. 4 Order (identifying concerns raised by AJW Orders of Nov. 3 & 7 and Dec. 4, and asking that Court’s final Order re. the record completeness come from full Court v. single-Justice)
2025-12-30 AJW Order denying relief sought Dec. 1 and 11 (but without providing explanations, including the explanations lacking in her Dec. 4 Order and sought Dec. 11)
2026-01-29 Husband’s Revised Opening Brief (replacing Dec. 2 Brief per AJW’s 12-30 Order)
2026-02-26 Opposition to Wife’s last-minute motion for additional time (totaling 120 days) with virtually no reason given.
LAW
In re.S.C., Juvenile & In re D.S., Juvenile, 2014 VT 7 (VT 2014) (SCOV sua sponte requests Amicus input related to RPC 3.1)
In re. Riley, No. 23-CV-01451 (VT Wash. Cty. Super. Ct., July 31, 2024); other Riley pleadings available here. (Probate and Superior Court judges prevent (for years) appellate review of violation of Court Order concerning welfare of disabled Child to determine issue having no bearing on any of three dispositive questions of law on appeal).
2007-046, 2009 VT 115 (SCOV 2009) (Chief Justice Reiber and Associate Justice Dooley dissents from 3-2 majority ruling, where majority rules that two attorneys’ knowing false statements to prospective witness (that the attorneys were not recording their phone call to him) was not an RPC 8.4 misrepresentation).
087-2024 (VT Screening Counsel and PRB, Jan. 17 & 19, 2024) (PRB reversing Screening Counsel’s position that S.C. lacks “venue” to address complaints while matter is in litigation, and ordering investigation of complaint with report to complainant)
013-2025 (VT Screening Counsel, Aug. 27, 2024) (continuing to deny “venue” despite PRB’s Jan. 19, 2024 reversal and remand to the contrary)
VT Bar Counsel Blog (Oct. 3, 2024) (“A [Rule 8.3] report should be made to the bar disciplinary agency unless some other agency, such as the court in which the violation occurred, is more appropriate in the circumstances.”) (emph. added)
A.O. 9, Para. 12 (re. confidentiality requirements for matters reported to Bar)
A.O. 10, Canon 3.E.1 (judge whose impartiality might reasonably be questioned must self-disqualify)
VT RPC 3.1
VT RPC 3.3
VT RPC 8.3
CA RPC 8.3