Adriana M. Berntsen v. David L. Berntsen
2017 ME 111
| Me. | 2017Background
- Parties married in 1982; David retired from the military in 1998; marriage broke down in 2011 and Adriana moved to Florida; she returned to Maine in 2014 and filed for judicial separation.
- David liquidated an IRA (~$61,000) and borrowed against his 401(k) (~$11,000) in 2014 and used funds to buy/renovate a condominium in his partner’s name; Adriana was not notified.
- Interim order had David paying Adriana $2,000/month in interim spousal support; contested hearing occurred March 2016 after discovery disputes involving David’s partner.
- Trial court limited discovery from David’s nonparty partner (quashed document production beyond records under parties’ control) but permitted her deposition appearance; court found David committed economic misconduct for liquidating the IRA and borrowing from the 401(k).
- Judgment awarded Adriana $1,500/month general spousal support, $237/month reimbursement support for ten years, 100% of the remaining 401(k) (less loan), and 59% of the marital portion of David’s military pension; denied attorney fees to both sides.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation on discovery from nonparty partner | Court abused discretion by quashing subpoenas for partner's documents/deposition | Partner is nonparty; David’s and partner’s testimony and David’s records suffice | No abuse of discretion; court permissibly limited nonparty discovery as irrelevant/burdensome |
| Valuation of marital assets (bank accounts, 401(k)) | Court’s valuations unsupported; 401(k) documented higher than court found | Court’s valuations reflected fluctuating balances and reasoned evaluation of evidence | Valuations not clearly erroneous; any error favored Adriana because she received full remaining 401(k) less loan |
| Economic misconduct findings | Court should have found additional misconduct (undisclosed gift letter, failure to file signed financial statement, concealed partner payments) | Court had testimony/evidence and credibility calls; not all omissions rise to misconduct | No clear error; court properly found misconduct for IRA liquidation and 401(k) loan but not the additional alleged items |
| Spousal support amount and findings | Award insufficient and findings inadequate; requested higher reimbursement calculation | Court considered statutory factors, earning capacity, and misconduct; methodology discretionary | No abuse of discretion; findings adequate to support $1,500/month general support and $237/month reimbursement for 10 years |
| Attorney fees | Entitled to fees given defendant’s conduct and discovery issues | Both incurred substantial fees; fairness supports each bearing own costs | No abuse of discretion denying fees; court considered relative capacities and litigation conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutt v. Hanson, 2016 ME 128 (addresses deference to trial court findings and credibility in family law)
- Burrow v. Burrow, 2014 ME 111 (standard for reviewing valuation of marital property)
- Catlett v. Catlett, 2009 ME 49 (standard for reviewing findings of economic misconduct)
- Dube v. Dube, 2016 ME 15 (abuse-of-discretion review for spousal support awards)
- Miele v. Miele, 2003 ME 113 (requirement that divorce court make sufficient findings to support support orders)