Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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. View "Neudek v. Neudek" on Justia Law

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.