Bruce F.C. Gomberg v. Cristina C. Gomberg
125 A.3d 724
| Me. | 2015Background
- Bruce and Cristina Gomberg divorced in March 2011 by judgment that incorporated a settlement: Bruce agreed to pay $225,000/yr spousal support (rising to $243,000/yr after child support ended) with no temporal limit; the judgment contained no factual findings.
- In June 2012 the parties agreed to a modification: child support terminated, overdue spousal arrears paid, and spousal support was reduced to $169,000/yr for two years, with a provision that spousal support would revert to $243,000/yr on February 24, 2014 unless a party filed to modify. The 2012 order contained no factual findings.
- Bruce filed a second modification motion in April 2013 seeking further reduction/termination of spousal support; after a contested hearing the court made factual findings about incomes and circumstances at both 2011 and 2012 points.
- Findings: at 2011 the parties had used $670,000 as Bruce’s gross income and $0 for Cristina (unemployed since 2005–06); at 2012 Bruce’s gross was ~$479,000 and Cristina remained unemployed; Bruce later had gross around $485,000 (2014) and $477,500 (2015).
- The court found a substantial change only as to a decrease in the value of the marital home awarded to Bruce and adjusted spousal support downward $20,000/yr for ten years to account for an estimated $204,000 loss in house value; otherwise it left the agreed support in place. Bruce appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gomberg) | Defendant's Argument (Gomberg) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should compare present circumstances to the 2011 divorce judgment rather than the 2012 order | The 2012 order was temporary; comparison should be to original 2011 judgment | 2012 order was the most recent final order and proper point of comparison | Court: 2012 order was the most recent final order; comparison to 2012 was correct |
| Whether filing a motion to modify prevented the 2012-ordered reversion to higher spousal support | Filing a motion should stay or bar the automatic return to $243,000 | A motion to modify does not, by itself, prevent the agreed reversion | Court: mere filing did not prevent the reversion; trial court’s interpretation not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Bruce’s income decline or Cristina’s unemployment/earning capacity constituted a substantial change | Bruce argued these factors showed a substantial change warranting reduction | Cristina argued circumstances were unchanged since 2012; no substantial change existed | Court: income and employment/earning capacity unchanged since 2012; no substantial change shown on those grounds |
| Whether the court permissibly adjusted support for loss in house value | Bruce contended overall award should be reduced more; challenge to court’s treatment | Cristina accepted adjustment on account of property value decrease | Court adjusted support only to account for house value loss; other aspects left intact; no reversible abuse shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. Ellis, 962 A.2d 328 (Me. 2008) (burden on party moving to modify support)
- Westleigh v. Conger, 755 A.2d 518 (Me. 2000) (appellate standard when record would compel contrary result)
- State v. Forbis, 856 A.2d 621 (Me. 2004) (trial court interpretation of judgment ambiguity reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Thompson v. Rothman, 791 A.2d 921 (Me. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for interpretation of judgments)
- Smith v. Rideout, 1 A.3d 441 (Me. 2010) (modification under § 951-A: substantial change since most recent final order)
- Hughes v. Morin, 755 A.2d 513 (Me. 2000) (limitations on using clarification orders to effect material changes in property division)
- Bliss v. Bliss, 583 A.2d 208 (Me. 1990) (court may not use clarification order to modify property division)