Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's protection from abuse (PFA) case, holding that the court did not err in determining that Plaintiff had agreed to a dismissal with prejudice.In 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint for PFA against Defendant, whom she was divorcing. The PFA case was included in the divorce settlement negotiations. By the end of 2019, the parties had negotiated a future dismissal with prejudice of the PSA case as part of their final settlement. In 2021, on the eve of the expiration of the agreed-upon, self-terminating order, Plaintiff requested a final evidentiary hearing in the PFA case. The court dismissed the PFA order with prejudice, concluding that Plaintiff agreed that the PFA complaint would be dismissed with prejudice following two years without violation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not commit clear error in (1) determining that Plaintiff intended to enter into a binding settlement agreement that would be incorporated into the court's order; and (2) finding that Defendant did not violate the terms of the PFA order. View "Doe v. Hewson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice Grandmother's complaints for determination of de facto parentage concerning her two minor grandchildren, holding that the best interests determinations required in guardianship actions and in actions for de facto parentage are distinct determinations.The district court determined that issue preclusion completely barred Grandmother's claims for de facto parentage because the issue of the child's best interests was already decided in a prior consolidated proceeding on competing guardianship petitions. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below and remanded the matter for the court to consider Grandmother's standing with respect to her complaints for de facto parentage, holding that issue preclusion did not prevent the court from considering Grandmother's complaints for de facto parentage because the best interests determinations required in a guardianship proceeding are not identical to those in a proceeding for de facto parentage. View "Gardner v. Greenlaw" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court striking Mother's "motion to reopen evidence" on Father's motion to modify child support because she failed to pay a filing fee, holding that Mother was not required to pay a filing fee.More than a decade after the parties divorced, Father filed a motion to modify child support seeking a reduction in his support obligation because the parties' oldest child had graduated from high school. The trial court granted the motion. Mother later filed her motion to reopen evidence asserting that she had discovered evidence showing that Father's actual income was significantly higher than the income imputed to him by the trial court in its order. The trial court struck the motion as incomplete for lack of a filing fee. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding that Mother's motion was exempt from the filing fee. View "Davies v. Davies" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court granting Wife's complaint for divorce, holding that the trial court's factual findings were not supported by competent record evidence.On appeal, Husband argued that the trial court erred in determining that a 1968 Ford Mustang was a gift to Wife and setting it aside for her as her nonmarital property and in awarding a 2013 Honda Rancher to Wife. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding (1) because the parties did not present evidence of under what circumstances the 1968 Ford Mustang was acquired the trial court lacked an adequate evidentiary basis from which it could award the vehicle to set it aside for one of the parties; and (2) because there was no evidence that the parties owned a 2013 Honda Rancher at the time of the final hearing the trial court erroneously awarded one to Wife. View "Mitchell v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

In this post-dissolution action, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court granting Appellant's motion to amend a stipulated order, holding that the motion to amend the stipulated order was untimely.After the parties divorced they filed various post-judgment motions. The parties then reached an agreement and presented their stipulations to the court. The court executed a stipulated order without holding a hearing. Appellant later filed a motion to amend the order by inserting a vehicle or serial identification number to each alleged corresponding item of personal property listed in the stipulated order. The district court granted the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order below, holding that amending the stipulated order constituted a substantive change, and therefore, Appellant's motion should have been considered pursuant to Rule 59(e) as a motion to alter or amend the judgment rather than dismissed as untimely. View "Beedle v. Beedle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part and remanded in part the divorce judgment entered by the district court on Husband's complaint, holding that the judgment was improper was to the property division and attorney fees.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) delineation of Wife's employment retirement accounts as marital or nonmarital property must be calculated pursuant to a three-step process for division of property in a divorce matter; (2) the relevant date for determining the marital and nonmarital portions of Husband's retirement accounts was the date of the entry of the divorce judgment; (3) the trial court erred by double counting Wife's Vanguard retirement accounts; and (4) because the property division portion of the judgment must be vacated, the trial court's denial of Wife's request for attorney fees also must be vacated. View "Moran v. Moran" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the interlocutory order of the district court allowing discovery in a protection from abuse action instituted by Pat Doe against Sam Roe and denying in part Doe's request for a discovery protective order pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 26(c), holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) while discovery is not prohibited in protection from abuse proceedings, when it is appropriate or necessary discovery must take place within strict parameters; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Roe had met his burden of showing that justice required discovery on thirteen of his interrogatories. View "Doe v. Roe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and remanded in part a judgment awarding parental rights and responsibilities entered in the district court as to Father's four children with Mother, holding that the court's judgment failed to include a required statement.The judgment in this case granted Mother sole parental rights and responsibilities and primary physical residence and denied Father rights of parent-child contact. The Supreme Court held (1) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father rights of parent-child contact, and any other error was harmless; and (2) the court's judgment failed to include a required statement governing parental access to records relating to the children. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the matter for the district court to amend the order. View "Mayberry v. Janosky" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order entered by the district court dismissing Grandmother's petition for grandparent visitation for lack of standing, holding that there was no error.Grandmother petitioned against Mother and Father for visitation rights with the three children at issue in this case under the Grandparents and Great-grandparents Visitation Act, Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1801-1806. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of standing, concluding that Grandmother did not prove that she had a sufficient existing relationship with the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court applied the correct standard of proof and that the record did not compel the court to make factual findings in Grandmother's favor. View "Fiske v. Fiske" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the divorce judgment entered by the district court in which the court adopted a referee's determination of the parties' child's primary residence and awarded Kristina Toland marital fees, holding that there was no error.The referee determined that Toland be awarded primary residence of the parties' minor child even if Toland relocates from Maine to Ohio and that Toland be awarded attorney fees. The district court adopted the referee's findings and recommendations. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the referee's findings were not clearly erroneous, nor was the determination based on these findings that the child's best interest would be served by living in Toland in Ohio while maintaining contact with Helge Reimann; and (2) the attorney-fee waiver provision in the parties' premarital agreement was unenforceable as applied to their litigation of parental rights. View "Riemann v. Toland" on Justia Law