## Facts

- Daniel T. Quinn (husband) and Suzanne T. Schipper (wife) married in 1980 and separated in 1992.
- In connection with their Maryland divorce, the parties executed an “Agreement of Separation and Property Settlement” addressing, among other things, their interest in Skyline Engineers of Md., Inc., a closely held corporation.
- Paragraph 11 of the separation agreement provided that the wife would transfer her stock interest to the husband and that the husband would “indemnify and hold harmless” the wife from liabilities arising from her prior ownership or participation in management, including federal and state tax liabilities.
- In March 1994, shortly before the agreement was finalized and delivered, the husband asked the wife to sign a separate tax-liability addendum.
- The addendum contradicted Paragraph 11 by stating that any federal and state income taxes, interest, and penalties above $100,000 would be paid by the wife, and that she would indemnify and hold the husband harmless for those amounts.
- The husband did not deliver the fully executed separation agreement to the wife until March 29, 1994—after she had agreed to sign the tax-liability addendum the day before.
- The Maryland trial court later entered a final divorce decree (July 1994) incorporating the separation agreement and a custody addendum, but it did not reference or incorporate the tax-liability addendum.
- Years later, the husband sued in Vermont to enforce the tax-liability addendum and sought to recover tax amounts he claimed exceeded $100,000.
- The litigation proceeded in Vermont family court. In an earlier appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court held that because the addendum was not incorporated into the Maryland decree, it remained a separate contract that could be litigated in Vermont.
- On remand, the family court held an evidentiary hearing. The wife asserted defenses including fraudulent misrepresentation and argued that she signed the addendum based on the husband’s statements while lacking the benefit of the already-signed separation agreement that assigned tax risk in the opposite direction.
- The family court found the wife was induced to sign the addendum by fraudulent misrepresentation and concluded the addendum was unenforceable; it also determined the separation agreement governed.
- The husband appealed again, arguing (among other points) that refusing to enforce the addendum denied the Maryland divorce decree full faith and credit.

## Issues

1. Whether the family court erred in finding the wife was fraudulently induced to sign the tax-liability addendum and in refusing to enforce it.
2. Whether refusing to enforce the unincorporated tax-liability addendum denied the Maryland divorce decree full faith and credit.
3. Whether the Vermont family court properly exercised authority to decide enforceability of the addendum as a contract dispute following the parties’ divorce.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the family court’s order declining to enforce the tax-liability addendum.
- The Court held the record supported the family court’s finding that the wife’s signature on the addendum was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation, making the addendum unenforceable against her.
- The Court rejected the husband’s full faith and credit argument because the Maryland divorce decree incorporated the separation agreement but did not incorporate the tax-liability addendum; Vermont’s ruling did not change the Maryland judgment.
- The Court declined to grant relief based on the husband’s remaining objections, which did not show reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- When a divorce decree incorporates a separation agreement but does not incorporate a separate addendum, the addendum is not part of the judgment and may be treated as an independent contract.
- An independent contract connected to a marital settlement is subject to standard contract defenses, including fraudulent inducement.
- A contract term obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation may be refused enforcement against the party who signed in reliance on the misrepresentation.
- Full faith and credit requires enforcement of the foreign judgment as entered, but it does not require enforcement of a side agreement that the foreign court did not adopt as part of its decree.
- Appellate review defers to supported trial-court factfinding; the Supreme Court will not reweigh evidence where the findings have evidentiary support.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the family court’s refusal to enforce a tax-liability addendum that shifted corporate tax exposure to the former wife because the family court’s finding of fraudulent inducement was supported by the record, and nonenforcement did not deny full faith and credit to the Maryland divorce decree that incorporated only the separation agreement and not the addendum.


Quinn v. Schipper, 908 A.2d 413 (2006)