Following a summary of the Spaulding divorce case, linked below are all Transcripts and admitted Exhibits. Docket numbers for the VT Trial and Supreme Court are 24-2M-02923 & 25-AP-359, respectively, and access to all pleadings is available here. Husband’s Exhibit S is, by itself, a “smoking gun” of serial ethics violations by Wife’s Counsel and the Trial Judge (RPCs 3.3, 4.2 , & 8.3, and JRC 2.15), and Husband’s Dec. 2 & 11 Appellate Briefs provide detailed proof of the violations and other matters discussed below.
* * *
Summary. Among other significant issues, the divorce (Case 3) involves costs arising from a farm-related permitting dispute (Case 1) and litigation with a Developer (Case 2) for damaging breaking a water line running to Husband’s 3-generation family farm.
During the multi-year pendency of Cases 1 and 2, Wife left Husband days after learning that, due to his fertility issues, she could not have children with him absent spending money they did not have. She emptied the couple’s joint bank account (all but $100) and otherwise took marital assets for a move to an Alabama home she’d asked Husband to help her buy and that her Vermont-based aunt bought less than 2 months after the separation … and just 2 days after Wife filed for divorce while falsely swearing that she’d been separated for more than the statutorily-required 6 months.
In the days leading up to the separation, Wife wrote Husband’s sister-in-law (from whom Wife had borrowed heavily, as she had from Husband as well) that Wife loved Husband but could not wait any longer to have children.
During Day 1 of the divorce hearing — for which Wife testified remotely after her Counsel said without any sworn statement or other factual basis that Wife could not be in the same room as Husband — Wife testified that she had signed a Settlement Agreement (“SA”) and otherwise done all she could to settle Case 2 … for which costs had arisen to approximately $100,000 and Husband and his family had covered.
Later-obtained emails from Wife’s Case 2 Counsel revealed that Wife either never signed the SA or she and Counsel deliberately withheld it as leverage to allow Wife to claim equity in the Husband’s family farm. Despite Wife’s Case 2 and 3 Counsel’s RPC 3.3 obligation to tell the Court of Wife’s Day 1 fraud, neither disclosed it nor was either willing to discuss the matter with Bar Counsel.
When Husband’s Counsel told Case 3 Judge Kirsten Schoonover (“JS”) of Wife’s fraud and Counsel’s refusal to disclose it, JS declared the fraud and refusal (and the Exhibit S documents proving them) “irrelevant” to Case 3. JS said this despite that Wife had testified about Case 2 costs (and her allegedly signing the SA to end them) during her direct examination. Further, JS: (1) prevented cross-examination of Wife on this or the vast majority of other matters about which Wife’s had testified on direct; (2) required Husband (but not Wife) to support his testimony with documents; (3) prevented Husband from calling his Mother as a witness despite that Mother had critical information and had twice traveled from out-of-State to testify); and (4) made numerous statements that documents show had no basis at all and/or were misleading (thus violating Rules 3.1 and/or 8.4).
After Husband’s counsel (who was serving pro bono) moved to withdraw at the conclusion of the hearings, JS denied the Motion in a matter that barred withdrawal unless Husband allowed the period for noticing an appeal to expire without an appeal.
Husband nevertheless filed a timely appeal, but for reasons that remain unexplained or even acknowledged, the Court’s appeal record omits at least 11 of Husband’s admitted Exhibits and includes all of Wife’s Exhibits though none was admitted. Husband’s Notice of this incompleteness and disparity; and consequential Emergency Motion for an Extension of Time to file his Appellate Brief – remained unaddressed through Husband’s Dec. 2 deadline for filing his Brief and even for weeks afterward (and continuing today, Dec. 28).
TRANSCRIPTS: 2025-04-15, 2025-07-21, 2025-09-03
EXHIBITS:
Husband’s List and 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).
PLEADINGS
2024-11-20 Wife’s Complaint for Divorce
2025-07-07 Wife’s Proposed Final Stipulation
2025-07-10 Wife’s Motion for Permission to Testify Remotely
2025-07-11 Husband’s Counsel’s Notice of Limited Appearance
2025-07-11 Husband’s Consent & Response to Wife’s 07-10 Motion to Appear Remotely
2025-07-22 Order scheduling Sept. 3 Hearing
2025-08-29 Husband’s Proposed Final Stipulation
2025-09-03 Order confirming admission of all of Husband’s Exhibits
2025-09-04 Motion by Husband’s Counsel to Withdraw
2025-09-04 1st Exhibit to MTWithdraw (Wife’s counsel rejecting 7 requests to negotiate)
2025-09-04 2nd Exhibit to MTWithdraw (ABA & VBA Guidelines)
2025-09-10 Trial Court’s Decision and Order (from which appeal was taken)
2025-09-11 Trial Court’s Order denying Sept. 4 Motion to Withdraw
2025-10-09 Husband’s Notice of Appeal
2025-10-23 Husband’s Docketing Statement (with Statement of Questions)
2025-10-23 Court Notice Stating (Incorrectly) that Appeal Record Is Complete
and Shea matter may go to trial as result (this document has *asterisk to make clear that, having not been rec’d. until after the Trial ended (and even after the Appeal Volume was created), it is not part of the record on appeal. That said, it relates directly to Exhibit S and related matters)
2025-11-03 SCOV Order declining to consider Amicus Curiae input absent Motion for same
2025-11-04 Husband’s Motion to Waive Requirement for Fees, Costs, and Printing
2025-11-07 SCOV Order denying Nov. 4 Motion as to Fees and Costs
2025-12-01 Husband’s Supplement to Dec. 1 Notice & Emergency Motion
2025-12-02 Husband’s Second Supplement to Dec. 1 Notice & Emergency Motion
2025-12-02 Husband’s Opening Brief on Appeal
2025-12-30 SCOV Order denying Motion to Correct Record (and in other respects)
LAW.
In re. S.C., Juvenile & In re D.S., Juvenile, Nos. 2013-278 & 2013-211 2014 VT 7 (VT 2014).
In re. Riley, No. 23-CV-01451 (VT Wash. Cty. Super. Ct., July 31, 2024); other Riley pleadings available here.
In re. [Blank], Dkt. No. 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)
In re. [Blank], Dkt. No. 013-2025 (VT Screening Counsel, Aug. 27, 2024) (continuing to deny “venue” despite PRB’s Jan. 19, 2024 reversal and remand to the contrary)