Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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. View "Nolan v. LaBree" on Justia Law

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. View "Dunwoody v. Dunwoody" on Justia Law

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. View "Bojarski v. Bojarski" on Justia Law

Sharon and Nathan Weston divorced in 2005 pursuant to a divorce decree stating that Nathan would provide child support for the couple's adult disabled son, Alex, as long as Alex was unemancipated, which was defined as domiciled with Sharon and "principally dependent upon Sharon for support." In 2008, Alex and Sharon began participating in a program that provided Sharon about $30,000 annually. The district court granted Nathan's subsequent motion to modify child support, concluding that Alex was emancipated pursuant to the terms of the divorce decree because Alex was financially supported by the state and the Social Security Administration. The Supreme Court vacated the order terminating Nathan's child support obligation, holding that notwithstanding the government benefits he received, Alex was principally dependent on Sharon's financial contribution, and therefore, Alex was not emancipated. View "Weston v. Weston" on Justia Law

R.M. appealed from a judgment entered in the probate court denying his petition to establish his parental rights to Tobias D. and granting the petition of the child's current guardians to terminate R.M.'s parental rights to the child. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the probate court and remanded the matter for entry of an order requiring DNA testing, as the child's actual parentage was not resolved. If, as the probate court assumed, R.M. was the child's biological father, the probate court would need to decide R.M.'s petition to establish parental rights and the guardians' petition to terminate R.M.'s parental rights in accordance with this opinion. View "Adoption of Tobias D." on Justia Law

Wife and Husband divorced pursuant to a judgment entered in April 2009. The trial court subsequently granted Wife's motion to modify and motion for contempt. Husband appealed, arguing that the court erred when it (1) modified the divorce judgment to order Husband to continue making payments toward the mortgage on the home that had been awarded to Wife, as Wife had unilaterally refinanced the home in her name only, thereby extinguishing the second mortgage for which Husband was responsible; and (2) found Husband in contempt of the divorce judgment when he discontinued making payments to Wife comparable to the payments he was to have made on the second mortgage after Wife refinanced the home. The Supreme Court vacated the portions of the court's order granting Wife's motion to modify and motion for contempt, holding that although Wife's unilateral action in refinancing the property caused the intended distribution of debt in the divorce judgment to be complicated, her action did not absolve Husband of his responsibility for paying an amount equivalent to the principal indebtedness on the now-extinguished second mortgage. Remanded. View "Lewin v. Skehan" on Justia Law

April Casale filed a complaint for protection from abuse against her then-husband, Randall Casale, on behalf of herself, her child, and Randall's three minor children. The district court issued a final protection order, specifically prohibiting Randall from having any contact with April and all four children. Thereafter, the divorce court issued a divorce judgment awarding the parties shared parental rights as to their three children and placing residence of the children with April. Randall later moved to modify the protection order. Without holding a hearing, the court issued an amended final protection order prohibiting Randall from having contact with April and the four children but indicating an exception to the no-contact provision to coordinate exchanges for contacts and incidental contact during those exchanges pursuant to the terms of the divorce judgment. April appealed, contending that the court erred in modifying the protection order to allow Randall to have some contact with her without conducting a hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the amended final protection order, holding that the court's decision not to conduct a testimonial hearing on Randall's motion was error. Remanded to the district court for it to conduct the required hearing. View "Casale v. Casale" on Justia Law