Cheron Dostanko v. Anthony M. Dostanko, 65 A.3d 1271

Dostanko v. Dostanko involved contempt and support arrearages arising from a Maine-modified divorce judgment (entered after 2008 modification), with Anthony employed and earning variably over 2008–2011.
Cheron filed a contempt motion in 2011 alleging Anthony failed to move to modify child support after employment and owed arrears; Anthony filed a modification motion in 2011.
The district court found Anthony violated the modified judgment, calculating past-due support at $26,937 and, adding a proposed $9,537 hypothetical amount, a total arrearage of $36,474 as of March 8, 2012.
The court deemed this amount a compensatory fine and ordered Anthony to pay $46,272.45 (arrearages, compensatory fine, and attorney fees) and imprisoned him for 60 days unless purged by payment within 60 days.
The judgment affirmed arrearages, compensatory fine, and attorney fees, but vacated the coercive imprisonment order and remanded for proceedings on imprisonment.
On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed most holdings but vacated the coercive imprisonment portion and remanded for further consideration of Anthony’s present circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to order additional child support amount	Dostanko argues the court lacked authority to order the extra $9537 as a compensatory fine for retroactive child support.	Dostanko contends the amount is an impermissible retroactive modification of child support.	Court had authority to compensate for loss; not a retroactive modification problem.
Calculation of Anthony's gross income for support	Cheron contends the court correctly used $99,000 as Anthony’s gross income for the relevant period.	Anthony argues income declined post-2009; the court should not rely on $99,000.	Record supports $99,000 as gross income for calculation.
Attorney fees as compensatory sanction	Cheron seeks $9,798.45 in attorney fees as part of the compensatory sanction.	Anthony argues fee award was unreasonable and not considering ability to pay.	Fees were reasonable and properly awarded as compensatory sanction.
Coercive imprisonment for nonpayment	Court could imprison for contempt to compel payment of the full $46,272.45.	Imprisonment must be based on a separate contempt finding for nonpayment of the fine, not tied to unresolved portions.	Imprisonment cannot be conditioned on paying the entire sum; remanded to limit to $26,937 arrearage and allow further evidence on current circumstances.

Wood v. Wood, 407 A.2d 282 (Me. 1979) (retroactive child support modifications permitted with limited exceptions)
Splude v. Dugan, 2003 ME 88 (Me. 2003) (coercive imprisonment requires separate contempt finding and notice)
Gillman v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 711 A.2d 154 (Me. 1998) (contempt powers supplement statutory remedies)
Efstathiou v. Efstathiou, 982 A.2d 339 (Me. 2009) (court’s discretion on fees and factual credibility)
Ellis v. Ellis, 962 A.2d 328 (Me. 2008) (standard for affirming findings of gross income)