Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Alfred Miliano appealed a divorce judgment, contending that the court clearly erred or abused its discretion by: (1) erroneously classifying his nonmarital real property as marital property and then awarding certain parcels to Renee Miliano; and (2) awarding Renee general spousal support of $2500 per month until the death of either party or here remarriage. Because the evidentiary record was inadequate to overcome the conclusion that property purchased by Alfred before the marriage was nonmarital property, and the Supreme Court was uncertain of the trial court's intention regarding the allocation of property in lieu of spousal support. The Court remanded the case for clarification reconsideration. View "Miliano v. Miliano" on Justia Law

Defendant Colin Haag appealed his conviction on two counts of kidnapping after a jury trial at superior court. Defendant was charged with kidnapping stemming from divorce proceedings through which Defendant's ex-wife withheld access to Defendant's two daughters. On appeal, Defendant contended that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Upon review of the superior court record, the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to support Defendant's conviction, and affirmed the superior court's judgment. View "Maine v. Haag" on Justia Law

Jessica Hamm appealed a judgment of the district court awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' daughter to Budd Grant. Hamm argued that the court abused its discretion by relying largely on its determination that she willfully misused the protection from abuse process to the exclusion of other best interest factors and without making adequate findings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did no err in finding that Hamm willfully misused the protection from abuse process; (2) properly considered several of the best interest factors; and (3) did not err or abuse its discretion in its ultimate award of sole parental rights and responsibilities to Grant with limited rights of contact awarded to Hamm. View "Grant v. Hamm" on Justia Law

Andrew and Abby Desmond divorced pursuant to a judgment providing that their child would have primary physical residence with Abby and that no set schedule for contact with Andrew was anticipated as a result of Andrew's anticipated assignments as a U.S. Marine in other countries. On a motion to modify the divorce judgment, the court ordered that the child have regular and meaningful contact with Andrew, who was then based in Japan. After holding several status conferences and multiple case management conferences to assure that a summer visit occurred, Andrew ultimately declined to effectual a summer visit. The district court then entered an order determining that the visit could not occur and terminating the services of the guardian ad litem. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) determining that Andrew's decision not to propose an alternate schedule for the visit was "regrettable"; (2) terminating the services of the GAL; and (3) denying Andrew's Me. R. Civ. P. 52(b) motion. View "Desmond v. Desmond" on Justia Law

Timothy Akers appealed from a judgment on judgment on the parties' cross-motions for modification of their stipulated amended divorce judgment entered in the district court. The court left primary residence of the parties' daughter with the mother, Jennifer Akers, during the school year and ordered Timothy to pay child support. On appeal, Timothy argued that the court erred in (1) weighing the evidence presented at trial regarding the primary residence of the child and (2) computing the amount of child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that the best interests of the child would be best served by continuing primary, school-week residence with the mother and providing substantial contact with the father; and (2) Timothy did not preserve his second issue for appeal. View "Akers v. Akers" on Justia Law

After three years of marriage, George Sloan filed a complaint for divorce from Erin Christianson. The district court entered a divorce judgment awarding shared parental rights and responsibilities of the couple's son to Sloan to Christianson, primary residence of the son to Christianson, and unsupervised contact with the son to Sloan on days when Sloan was not working. Sloan subsequently filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment to obtain sole parental rights and responsibilities and primary residence of the son, alleging a substantial change in circumstances. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in making its factual findings, err as a matter of law, or abuse its discretion in awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities to Sloan. View "Sloan v. Christianson" on Justia Law

Lisa Douglas appealed from the district court's order granting Paul Douglas's motion to modify the couple's divorce judgment. Lisa argued that the court abused its discretion in modifying the divorce judgment to permit supervised, therapeutic reunification of the couple's child with Paul and that the court erred in finding the guardian ad litem fees reasonable. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment granting the modify, as there was sufficient evidence to establish a substantial change of circumstances justifying a modification of the parties' divorce decree; but (2) vacated the judgment regarding the guardian ad litem fees, as the court's decision did not include sufficient findings to support its judgment. Remanded. View "Douglas v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Kristen LaBree gave birth to a child. Neither Kristen nor her husband, Jeffrey LaBree, was genetically related to the child. Nine month before the birth, a zygote created through the in vitro fertilization of Celia Nolan's egg cell with sperm from her husband, Robert Nolan, was implanted in Kristen. The day the child was born, the Nolans requested that the district court order that they were the parents of the child. The trial court determined that Robert was the father of the child and declared his paternity but declined to declare Celia's maternity, holding that there was no statutory authority for such a determination. The court did declare that Celia was the de facto mother of the child and awarded sole parental rights and responsibilities to the Nolans. The Nolans appealed, and the LaBrees joined the Nolans in their argument. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the court erred in concluding that it lacked statutory authority to declare maternity.

Janice and Steven Dunwoody were divorced pursuant to a divorce judgment entered in the district court. Steven filed a motion to clarify the divorce judgment, seeking to establish a life insurance trust as provided in the agreement. The district court issued an order clarifying the original divorce judgment by ordering that the trust be established and ordering the cash surrender value of Steven's life insurance policy to be evenly split between Steven and Janice after their youngest child reached the age of twenty-three. Steven appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the court improperly disposed of omitted property - the cash surrender value of the life insurance policy - within the purview of a motion to clarify. Remanded.

Robert Borjarski appealed from a divorce judgment entered in the district court ending his marriage to Keri Bojarksi. On appeal, Robert made several allegations of error on the part of the district court, including its failure to allocate to Robert the tax exemptions with respect to two of the couple's four children, its determination of its marital portion of Robert's military retirement benefit, and its finding of the amount of marital debt owed on a particular credit card. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the property division portion of the judgment, holding that the district court in certain respects in its division of marital property and debt and in allocation of dependent tax exemptions; and (2) affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Remanded.