Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Wife initiated a divorce from Husband. After a trial and after applying the parties' premarital agreement to the evidence presented to divide the parties' real and personal property, the court ordered Husband to pay Wife $145,000. The court then ordered Wife to pay Husband $300,000 to achieve an equitable distribution. Wife appealed. Wife subsequently moved the district court to enforce the preliminary injunction, claiming Husband removed her from his health insurance policy in violation of the injunction. The trial court denied Wife's motion. Wife appealed this judgment and consolidated her appeals. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the trial court's action with respect to Wife's motion for a preliminary injunction as the parties' premarital agreement unequivocally barred the awarding of spousal support, and therefore, neither spouse could be required to provide the other with health insurance; and (2) affirmed most of the divorce judgment but vacated the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding Husband $300,000 to create an equitable division of the marital estate because there was insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that $300,000 of the assets awarded to Wife were marital property. Remanded.

The district court entered a jeopardy order based on a finding that jeopardy had been established by Mother's inadequate care and supervision of Child. During the pendency of Mother's appeal, Child turned eighteen years old. Although the appeal was moot, the Supreme Court reached the merits of the appeal because of potential collateral consequences. The Court then (1) concluded that the evidence did not establish parental unfitness to support a jeopardy order and, (2) while the jeopardy order itself was moot, vacated the court's order and the findings that supported the order and remanded with direction to vacate the jeopardy order and dismiss the child protection proceedings against Child.

The district court appointed Karen Wolf as referee to hear the divorce case of Wife and Husband. After a hearing conducted by Wolf, the district court entered a divorce judgment incorporating the referee's report. After the divorce judgment was entered, Wife filed two motions for post-judgment relief and moved to have the motions heard before the same referee that conducted the earlier hearing. The court referred the motions to the referee over Husband's objection. The Supreme Court dismissed Husband's interlocutory appeal, holding that no exception to the final judgment rule, including the death knell exception, the collateral order exception, nor the judicial economy exception, applied in this case.

Pursuant to a 2005 divorce judgment, the court awarded Christiane McAllister possession of the couple's marital home and monthly spousal support that would cover the house expenses until October 2009. Christiane was required to refinance the house in her name no later than November 1, 2009, or, alternatively, sell the house. The first $63,000 of any remaining proceeds was to go to Christiane in lieu of alimony. Christiane filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment on October 29, 2009, asserting that she could not pay her normal living expenses after spousal support terminated because of a drop on the value of the house. The court modified the divorce judgment, ordering Russell McAllister to pay support for an additional 36 months. Russell appealed, arguing that the court (1) made an error of law by modifying a division of marital property, (2) abused its discretion in modifying spousal support based on a substantial change in circumstances, and (3) abused its discretion by granting relief pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Christiane was entitled to relief on the basis of a substantial change in circumstances, and that the grant of relief pursuant to 60(b)(6) was harmless error.

The district court's dismissal of Arthur Neudek's motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities provisions in connection with his 2006 divorce from Deborah Neudek, is vacated and remanded where the district court failed to conduct a hearing on Arthur's motion to modify. The supreme court held that the rules of procedure in family division cases expressly require the court to conduct a hearing on a motion to modify unless two specific conditions are met, both of which did not apply in Arthur's case. The court noted that when one party's filing of serial motions to modify becomes burdensome for the opposing party, the court may create orders or impose sanctions tailored to the circumstances presented.

Andrew Desmond appealed a judgment of the district court that denied his motion to change the primary residence of his minor child. Mr. Desmond and his wife Abby divorced in 2007. The Supreme Court, in reviewing the decision, found that the lower court did reference the evidence presented in light of some of the "best interest factors" outlined in the state statutes to explain why it was in the child's best interest to stay with its mother. The Court concluded that although it might have made a different determination in the case, that determination would not be a basis for vacating the lower court's order. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, Dana Ramsdell contends that a provision in his 2006 divorce decree is ambiguous. While his divorce petition was pending, Mr. Ramsdell won a personal injury lawsuit. Under the terms of the divorce decree, Ms. Worden would receive twenty percent of the âpotential inchoate claimâ from the personal injury lawsuit. Arguing that the term âinchoate claimâ was ambiguous, Mr. Ramsdell petitioned the district court for reconsideration of the divorce courtâs award to his ex-wife, money from his personal injury suit. The district court affirmed the award. The Supreme Court, finding no error in the lower courtsâ interpretation of the divorce judgment or its calculation of the money she received, affirmed the order lower courtâs decision.

Lynne Bond appealed a judgment entered in the district court that denied part of her appeal to have her divorce decree amended. Mrs. Bond argued that the court erred or abused its discretion when it characterized her ex-husband Sheridan Bondâs business property as âalmost entirely nonmarital and of negligible value.â As a result of the incorrect valuation of the business, Mrs. Bond argues the disposition of the marital property saddled her with a disproportionate share of the marital debts. The lower court made specific findings regarding the length of the marriage, the partiesâ ages and incomes. The court determined that the business was gifted to Mr. Bond from his mother, and that there was little equity in it. The Supreme Court found that the lower courtâs factual determinations were fully supported by the record, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in reaching its conclusion. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision.

Robert and Candy Smith are the parents of a developmentally disabled child, Justan. In April, 2009, Mrs. Smith filed an appointment petition in the Probate Court to become Justan's sole guardian and conservator. The court set forth a schedule where visitation rights were divided equally between the parents. Mr. Smith intentionally prevented his wife from having her scheduled visits with Justan in June, 2009. Mrs. Smith subsequently filed a motion for contempt. The Probate Court held hearings both on the guardianship petition and Mrs. Smithâs motion for contempt. Over her ex-husband's objection, the court admitted testimonial reports from the guardian ad litem. As a result, the Probate Court entered a judgment appointing the former Mrs. Candy Smith and Mr. Smithâs new wife, Christine, as co-guardians of Justan. Christine was to become Justanâs sole conservator. The Probate Court erroneously ordered, as part of the judgment, that at least $200 per month from Justanâs social security insurance benefits be deposited into a bank account that named as account holders Justan, Christine and the former Mrs. Smith. Mr. Smiith filed a motion for findings and conclusions of law. The court complied and issued an amended judgment containing minor changes. Mr. Smith appealed. The Supreme Court found that the portion of the Lower Courtâs decision pertaining to the fore-mentioned $200 monthly deposit conflicted with Federal statues and regulations. Mr. Smith was vested with a discretionary authority to execute Justin's social security insurance monies. The Court vacated this portion of the Probate Courtâs judgment and affirmed the remainder.