Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of divorce entered by the district court as to the disposition of certain property and the dissolution of Cole G. Bridges Wild Blueberry LLC, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to order the dissolution of the LLC and erred in setting aside certain property to Cole Bridges.In 2020, Candy Littell filed for divorce from Bridges. The district court granted the divorce. On appeal, Bridges argued that the district court erred in evaluating and classifying a Cessna airplane and lacked jurisdiction to dissolve the LLC. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part and remanded the case, holding (1) the court did not have jurisdiction over the LLC and thus could not order its dissolution; and (2) the court erred in its classification and valuation of the Cessna airplane. View "Littell v. Bridges" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment entered in the district court establishing parental rights and responsibilities concerning Father's child with Mother, holding that the court's judgment included a finding regarding domestic violence that was contrary to the evidence.Father filed a complaint for the determination of parental rights and responsibilities, and Mother filed an answer and counterclaim. After the district court entered its judgment Father appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment below, holding (1) the court did not err in calculating Father's gross income for purposes of child support; and (2) the court clearly erred in finding that Father did not dispute Mother's testimony that he grabbed, pushed, and choked her, and the error was not harmless. View "Francoeur v. Berube" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court adopting the final order of the family law magistrate ordering Mother's divorce from Father, awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' child to Father, and distributing the parties' property, holding that the record lacked competent evidence to support the district court's findings.Mother, acting pro se, timely filed an objection to the final order of the magistrate, but the court denied the motion and adopted the magistrate's judgment. Mother then filed for relief from judgment, to set aside the default judgment, for a new trial, and for amended or additional factual findings. The motions were denied. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case, holding (1) when asserting that a magistrate's judgment lacks sufficient fact-finding, the objecting party should make her claim in a Mont. R. Civ. P. 118(a) objection, not a Mont. R. Civ. P. 52 motion after the district court has reviewed the Rule 118(a) objection; and (2) remand was necessary in this case because the existing record did not support the judgment. View "Daniel v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated a portion of the divorce judgment entered by the district court in this case and otherwise affirmed, holding that the trial court failed to make the specific finding required by statute establishing why it was equitable and just to allocate a tax exemption to the parent without primary residency.The amended divorce judgment at issue granted Husband contact with the parties' two children three weekends per month, ordered Husband to pay child support, and allocated one child dependency tax exemption to Husband. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part and affirmed in part the judgment below, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in its allocation of overnight child contact; (2) did not abuse its discretion in declining to make the award of child support retroactive; and (3) erred in its allocation of the child dependency exemptions. View "Proctor v. Childs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court on Appellant's complaint for divorce from Appellee, holding that the trial court's findings were insufficient to support the parental rights portions of the judgment and that the court erred in determining Appellee's income.On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that the court's orders concerning parental rights and responsibilities, the parties' child's residence, and Appellee's contact with the child constituted an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed and vacated the judgment below, holding (1) remand was required for the trial court to issue an amended judgment that included additional findings as necessary to set forth the basis for the same or different determinations regarding parental rights and responsibilities, contact, and residence; and (2) the record did not support the court's finding that Appellee's annual gross income was only $24,666. View "Whitmore v. Whitmore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment of the district court ordering Husband's divorce from Wife and awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' two children to Wife, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that Husband disclose all counseling records to Wife in order to have contact with their children.Six to seven years before Wife filed the complaint for divorce Husband's mental health began deteriorating. The trial judge granted Wife a divorce, ordered that Wife would have sole parental rights and responsibilities of the children, and ordered that Husband provide his counseling records to Wife to help convince Wife to allow visitation with the children and when this should occur. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part, holding that the term "counseling records" could include information that Wife may not have a right to access under federal and state law, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion in imposing this condition. View "Doe v. Walsh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court dismissing Plaintiff's tort complaint against Defendant, the firm that represented her ex-husband in her complaint for divorce, as being barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion, holding that Plaintiff's tort action was not barred by issue preclusion.During the divorce proceedings, Plaintiff moved for a mistrial on the ground of surprise because Defendant failed to copy her attorney on a subpoena requesting her counseling records from her therapist. A referee denied the motion. After the conclusion of the divorce proceedings, Plaintiff brought this action asserting claims of abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging that Defendant abused the legal process by obtaining a full set of her counseling records, and the disclosure caused her great distress. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was barred by res judicata. The trial court determined that Plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing her tort claims. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding that Plaintiff's action was not barred by issue preclusion because the referee's findings were not essential to the underlying divorce judgment. View "Pacheco v. Libby O'Brien Kingsley & Champion, LLC" on Justia Law

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