Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that an injury settlement agreement between the married couple in this case and a third party did constitute a valid and binding property settlement or postnuptial agreement, thus reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.Husband and Wife sued the manufacturer of Husband's pacemaker, among other parties, claiming medical malpractice. The couple were awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $5.4 million in punitive damages. Thereafter, the couple entered into a written settlement agreement with the pacemaker manufacturer requiring, for purposes of this appeal, Husband and Wife to use $5.4 million of the settlement to fund a series of annuity payments. Later, the parties separated, and the trial court entered a dissolution decree finding that the parties had agreed to the allocation of the settlement funds. Wife appealed, arguing that the punitive damages portion of the agreement was a community asset that should have been equitably divided. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's determination that the annuity payments were not community property based on the settlement, holding that the agreement was not a valid postnuptial agreement. View "Sowards v. Sowards" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the divorce judgment entered by the district court awarding Husband $35,500 of the marital equity in real estate owned by Wife and her father as joint tenants with one exception, holding that the findings and portion of the judgment regarding the valuation and division of marital property required vacatur.On appeal, Husband argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in valuing real estate as of the date the parties separated rather than the date that the parties divorced. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed in part, holding (1) the court did not err in its assessment of the marital equity in the real estate; and (2) the court erred as a matter of law in applying equitable principles to determine the marital property's value. The Court remanded the case for the trial court to determine the value of the marital equity in the real estate at the time of the divorce based on its independent assessment of the appraisal evidence in the record. View "Bolduc v. Bolduc" on Justia Law

Jason Sayler appealed an amended judgment entered after a bench trial on the issue of parental responsibility. He argued the district court’s award of primary residential responsibility to Mari Sayler in Minnesota was procedurally improper because: (1) she did not make a motion to relocate the children to Minnesota; (2) the court erred by failing to apply the Stout-Hawkinson factors; and (3) the court erred by considering circumstances created by the interim order. He further argued the court’s findings on the best interest factors and decision-making authority were clearly erroneous. Finally, he argued the court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees. Finding only that the district court did not make sufficient findings to support its award of attorney’s fees, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the court’s award of attorney’s fees and remanded for the court to make further findings on its award of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the parts of the amended judgment awarding primary responsibility and decision-making authority. View "Sayler v. Sayler" on Justia Law

A woman sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her estranged husband. The trial court denied her petition while indicating that her allegations of a pattern of control and isolation by limiting her access to money, communication, and transportation did not fall within the statutory definition of domestic violence or abuse. The Court of Appeal found that under the law, attempts to control, regulate, and monitor a spouse’s finances, economic resources, movements, and access to communications are abuse. The Court therefore reversed the order denying the restraining order and remanded for a new hearing on whether a restraining order was appropriate. The trial court did not address the woman's request for spousal support, and the Court ordered that considered on remand as well. View "Hatley v. Southard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the divorce judgment of the district court, holding that the district court erred in calculating past and future child support.On appeal, Father argued that the district court erroneously failed to account for changes in the parties' incomes and child care costs and to provide him with a downward deviation from child support guidelines and further erred in calculating his future child support obligation by excluding his child care costs. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the court's child support order and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred in its award of both past and future child support. View "McCarthy v. Guber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court allocating parental rights regarding the parties' child in this case, granting primary residence to Kyla Estes and defining rights of contact to Nicholas Capelety, holding that any error in the proceedings below was harmless.Capelety, who had a child with Estes, filed a complaint for determination of parentage, parental rights and responsibilities, and child support. Following a trial, the court issued a judgment determining parental rights and responsibilities. Capelety appealed, raising four assignments of error. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that even if the court abused its discretion in enforcing the limits controlling the order and timing of presentation of evidence in this case, it was highly probable that the court's enforcement of the time limits did not affect the judgment. View "Capelety v. Estes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the district court (1) did not err when it found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents were unfit as parents and that the Department of Health and Human Services failed to meet its statutory obligations pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4041(1-A)(A); and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it found that termination of Parents' parental rights, rather than establishing a permanency guardianship, was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Children of Quincy A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered three questions certified by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in this suit brought against Catholic Relief Services-United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (CRS), which follows the teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman.The district court ruled (1) CRS violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by revoking Plaintiff's dependent health insurance because he was a man married to another man; and (2) Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his federal Equal Pay Act claim. The court then ordered the parties to confer and file proposed questions of law with respect to the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA), Md. Code Ann., State Gov't 20-606, and the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (MEPEWA), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. 3-304. The Supreme Court answered (1) the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex in MFEPA does not itself also prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, which is separately covered under MFEPA; (2) MEPEWA does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination; and (3) MFEPA's religious entity exemption applies with respect to claims by employees who perform duties that directly future the core mission of the religious entity. View "Doe v. Catholic Relief Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied this action brought by Jennifer Giroux and Thomas Brinkman (collectively, Giroux) challenging an initiative petition to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 7, 2023 ballot, holding that Giroux failed to show that Ohio law required invalidating the petition.At issue was a petition proposing a constitutional amendment entitled "Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety." Giroux brought this challenge alleging that the petition did not comply with Ohio Rev. Code 3519.01(A). The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that section 3519.01(A) does not require a petition proposing a constitutional amendment to include the text of the existing statute, and Giroux's challenge failed for this reason. View "Giroux v. Committee Representing Petitioners" on Justia Law

In 2019, the Coles entered a stipulation requiring Scott to pay Kikianne child support of $7,537 per month for their two minor children plus bonus child support in accordance with a bonus wages report table, capped by Scott’s gross employment earnings of $2 million per year. Scott stopped making payments in April 2020 without Kikianne’s stipulation or court order and requested an order modifying his 2020 child support obligations. As the sole shareholder and director of his law firm, Scott alleged that his firm encountered severe economic challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that he had stopped taking a salary to keep his business afloat. Kikianne contended that Scott maintained assets, income, and access to funds in excess of $20 million and that he essentially failed to disclose all available income to pay child support.After a hearing, the court indicated it found Scott’s testimony “largely unbelievable” concerning his personal finances and transactions, denied Scott’s modification request, and ordered him to pay $90,444--the entire amount of child support due in 2020. The court also ordered Scott to pay Kikianne’s attorney fees ($123,909), finding that the awarded sum “does not impose an unreasonable burden.” The court of appeal affirmed. It was Scott’s burden to prove his circumstances had so changed that he lacked the ability and opportunity to meet his child support obligations. He did not do so. View "Marriage of Cole" on Justia Law