163 A.3d 820
Me.2017Background
- Adriana and David Berntsen married in 1982; David served in the U.S. Army; marriage broke down in 2011 and Adriana moved to Florida; she returned to Maine in 2014 and filed for separation/divorce.
- David liquidated an IRA (~$61,000) in 2014 and borrowed against his 401(k); funds were used to buy/renovate a condominium held in his partner’s name; court found $72,000 reduction to the marital estate from those transactions.
- Adriana subpoenaed David’s partner for deposition and financial records; the court limited document production by the nonparty and quashed portions of the subpoenas as to documents not under the parties’ control.
- Trial court found economic misconduct for the IRA liquidation and 401(k) loan, awarded Adriana: $1,500/month general spousal support, $237/month reimbursement support for 10 years, 100% of remaining 401(k) less loan, and 59% of the marital portion of David’s military pension.
- Court declined to award attorney fees to either party, noting both incurred substantial fees and considering the overall property/support awards; Adriana appealed claiming errors in discovery limitations, valuations, findings of economic misconduct, spousal support findings/amount, and denial of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation on third‑party financial discovery | Berntsen argued subpoenas to David’s partner for documents and deposition were improperly quashed and relevant to hidden assets/transfers | David argued partner is a nonparty; his own financial evidence was sufficient; partner’s private records unduly burdensome | Court’s discovery limitation was within discretion; nonparty privacy and sufficiency of parties’ records justified limit |
| Valuation of bank accounts and 401(k) | Berntsen claimed court’s valuations were unsupported and 401(k) value was misstated | David relied on trial evidence; court had discretion to evaluate fluctuating account balances | Valuations not clearly erroneous; any 401(k) understating benefited Berntsen because she received full remaining balance |
| Economic misconduct findings | Berntsen argued additional misconduct (undisclosed gift letter, undisclosed partner payments, unsigned financial statement) warranted further findings/punitive adjustment | David explained lapses as memory or accounting; court found enough evidence for misconduct only as to IRA liquidation and 401(k) loan | Court’s limited findings on misconduct were not clearly erroneous; credibility and evidence supported those discrete misconduct findings |
| Spousal and reimbursement support (amount/specific findings) | Berntsen claimed insufficient findings and that support awards (general and reimbursement) were too low or unsupported | David pointed to court’s consideration of statutory factors and earnings evidence; court exercised discretion in amount | Court made sufficient findings referencing statutory factors and employment/earning findings; award not an abuse of discretion; reimbursement calculation reasonable and avoids double recovery |
| Attorney fees | Berntsen sought fees based on disparity and opponent’s conduct increasing costs | David argued fees should be borne by each side; court should consider overall fairness and awards already made | Court considered relevant factors and permissibly denied fees; not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutt v. Hanson, 147 A.3d 352 (Me. 2016) (standard for reviewing trial court findings)
- State v. Marroquin-Aldana, 89 A.3d 519 (Me. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for motions to quash)
- Burrow v. Burrow, 100 A.3d 1104 (Me. 2014) (clear‑error review of property valuation in divorce)
- Cole v. Cole, 561 A.2d 1018 (Me. 1989) (trial court must reasonedly evaluate evidence when valuing assets)
- Catlett v. Catlett, 970 A.2d 287 (Me. 2009) (clear‑error review of economic misconduct findings)
- Dube v. Dube, 131 A.3d 381 (Me. 2016) (abuse of discretion standard for spousal support awards)
- Miele v. Miele, 832 A.2d 760 (Me. 2003) (required sufficiency of findings to support spousal support determinations)
- Jandreau v. LaChance, 116 A.3d 1273 (Me. 2015) (factors for awarding attorney fees in divorce)