Christine A. Murphy v. William E. Bartlett
2014 ME 13
| Me. | 2014Background
- Murphy and Bartlett divorced; district court obligated Bartlett to pay child support, spousal support, mortgage-related payments, and credit card debt per a 2011 divorce judgment.
- Bartlett paid timely until 2012 when he alleged income loss and trips reduced earnings; Murphy began paying mortgage/taxes/insurance for Bartlett’s portion.
- In Oct. 2012 the court found Bartlett delinquent on several payments, though there was evidence he could still meet some obligations.
- Murphy filed for contempt in May 2012; a hearing in Oct. 2012 led the court to find Bartlett lacked full compliance yet had some ability to comply.
- Judgment of contempt imposed 90 days’ jail (suspended) for three years if Bartlett failed to pay as ordered; sale proceeds of the home were to be applied to credit card debt and Murphy’s legal fees.
- On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the coercive imprisonment aspect due to lack of clear prospective ability to comply, but affirmed past-payment noncompliance and the sale-proceeds allocation; remanded for precise findings and a new remedial order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt findings were supported by Bartlett’s ability to comply as of judgment date | Bartlett had ability to comply | Bartlett lacked ability to pay as ordered | Past noncompliance supported; prospective ability not proved |
| Whether coercive imprisonment was proper as a remedial sanction | Imprisonment necessary to ensure future compliance | No clear present ability to purge contempt; imprisonment improper | Imprisonment improper; remand for new remedial order |
| Whether sale-proceeds allocation was an appropriate remedy | Allocate proceeds to credit card debt and Murphy’s fees | Proper discretionary remedy under Rule 66(d)(3) | Allocation proper; affirmed; coercive imprisonment vacated on remand |
| Whether district court should provide precise purge description | No need for detailed purge description | Required for clarity | Remanded to define the purge action with recipients and amounts |
Key Cases Cited
- Efstathiou v. Efstathiou, 2009 ME 107 (Me. 2009) (cont contempt: must comply to fullest extent; not all-or-nothing)
- Wrenn v. Lewis, 2003 ME 29 (Me. 2003) (coercive imprisonment requires present ability to purge)
- Wells v. State, 474 A.2d 846 (Me. 1984) (remedial coercive sanctions under Rule 66(d)(3) focus on enforcement)
- Small v. Small, 413 A.2d 1318 (Me. 1980) (civil contempt remedial purpose to secure enforcement)
- Tuck, 490 A.2d 649 (Me. 1985) (essential ingredient: contemnor must be able to comply)
- Lewin v. Skehan, 2012 ME 31 (Me. 2012) (review for clear error on ability to comply)