Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Husband and Wife divorced in 1989 pursuant to a divorce judgment that incorporated an agreement dividing the parties' property. Husband retired from the Air National Guard in 2002 and began collecting his retirement benefits in 2006. In 2010, Wife filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment, requesting that the district court specify the amount of Husband's military pension to which she was entitled. The court granted the motion and awarded a portion of Husband's benefits to Wife after concluding that the provision of the divorce judgment regarding Husband's military pension was ambiguous. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the provision awarding Husband his military pension was unambiguous and that Wife's motion to modify was improperly granted. Remanded. View "Burnell v. Burnell" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife divorced pursuant to a divorce judgment entered in the district court. The judgment awarded shared primary residence of the parties' two children and ordered Husband to pay child support. Husband appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of two of his expert witnesses and in quashing his subpoena of another witness. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that Husband did not identify that the trial court committed error, as the appeal lacked an adequate record, and Husband did not establish that the trial court showed actual error in the judgment. Remanded for the trial court to address the cost of the appeal, including reasonable attorney fees. View "Greaton v. Greaton" on Justia Law

This appeal involved six siblings and their mother. The parties participated in mediation that resulted in an agreement, which, among other things, divided Mother's real property. After disputes arose over the agreement, the probate court ordered arbitration pursuant to the agreement's arbitration clause. The arbitrator concluded that the agreement was enforceable and ordered the transfer of land necessary to effectuate it. Four of the sisters (Appellants) and the remaining siblings and mother (Appellees) then filed a series of motions. The superior court confirmed the arbitration award, denied a motion to vacate the award, denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granted a motion to dismiss a complaint for declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err in affirming the arbitrator's award and in concluding that the arbitrator and that the settlement agreement gave the arbitrator the authority to determine whether the agreement was valid and enforceable. View "Anderson v. Banks" on Justia Law

Raymond Cloutier appealed from a judgment entered in the district court granting Robin Turner's motion to enforce the child support provisions of a 1992 amended divorce judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) Turner had standing to bring the motion even though the children were above the ages of eighteen because, although the obligation to provide future support ends when the child reaches majority, liability for arrearages does not terminate then; (2) where child-support arrearages are considered money judgments and there is no statute of limitations for money judgments, Turner's claim of overdue child support was not time-barred; (3) the court's failure to apply the statute of limitations did not deprive Cloutier of his constitutional right of equal protection because Cloutier was not treated any differently than fathers who are subject to child support enforcement stemming from a paternity action; and (4) Cloutier failed to make the showing necessary to establish the defense of laches. View "Cloutier v. Turner" on Justia Law

Laurie Katon was involved in continuing litigation with her daughter and former son-in-law concerning their child, her granddaughter. In the instant case, Katon petitioned for visitation pursuant to the Grandparents Visitation Act. The district court dismissed the petition, concluding that because Katon had improperly withheld her granddaughter from the father, she could not establish standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition because the urgent reasons that may justify grandparent visitation consistent with constitutional standards do not exist where a grandparent has improperly withheld a grandchild from his or her parents. View "Katon v. Brandi M." on Justia Law

After Wife filed a complaint for divorce from Husband, the district court learned that the couple had not obtained a legally enforceable marriage license. Therefore, the court converted the complaint for divorce into a petition to determine parental rights and responsibilities. The court subsequently (1) awarded Wife primary residential care of the children and final decision-making authority in the event the parties disagreed about significant decisions affecting the children and (2) ordered Husband to make weekly child support payments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) awarding Wife primary residence of the three minor children as that determination was not based upon clearly erroneous findings, (2) allocating final decision-making authority to Wife where the court found that Husband had a history of abuse and that Wife received substantial support in caring for the children, and (3) imputing Husband's earning capacity for the purpose of establishing the child support order partially due to Husband's limited efforts to find employment. View "Sheikh v. Haji" on Justia Law

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. View "Laqualia v. Laqualia" on Justia Law

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. View "In re Ciara H." on Justia Law

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. View "Bond v. Bond" on Justia Law

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. View "McAllister v. McAllister" on Justia Law