Christopher MacMahon v. Elizabeth Tinkham
109 A.3d 1141
| Me. | 2015Background
- MacMahon and Tinkham are divorced parents of two daughters; MacMahon has primary physical residence. A modified judgment (effective Sept. 21, 2012) ordered Tinkham to pay $103/week in child support after the court imputed incomes and applied a downward deviation.
- From the effective date through March 28, 2014, Tinkham’s total obligation was $8,137; she paid $750 directly and the Department seized $235.94, leaving $7,151.06 arrears at the hearing.
- Tinkham runs a small business making replacement toddler-car-seat covers; net business income was found to be roughly $29,000–$35,000 in prior years, but 2013 was worse and the court lacked exact 2013 net figures.
- Tinkham lives with her boyfriend and six children in a house she bought in foreclosure using $16,000 borrowed from her grandmother; she proposed selling her business to her brother for a $2,500 down payment plus payments.
- District Court found evidence of discretionary spending by Tinkham (coffee, entertainment) but concluded MacMahon failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she presently had the ability to pay or wilfully refused to comply, and denied the contempt motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record compels contempt for failure to pay child support | MacMahon: record shows Tinkham did not comply to the fullest extent possible and has present ability to pay; contempt should be found | Tinkham: business income variable; supports other children; expenditures uncertain; not proved she had present ability or wilfully refused | Denied — appellate court affirms: MacMahon did not show contempt by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying contempt | MacMahon: facts compel contrary finding and contempt order | Tinkham: credibility and factual inferences support denial; court acted within discretion | No abuse of discretion; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether MacMahon was entitled to attorney fees after contempt motion | MacMahon: prevailing party on enforcement should get fees | Tinkham: motion not granted; court properly declined fees | Court unpersuaded by MacMahon; denial affirmed |
| Whether court could treat contempt motion as a motion to enforce (procedural authority) | MacMahon: challenges court treating motion as motion to enforce | Tinkham: court acted; but issue not briefed on appeal | Appellate court declines to reach unbriefed issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratt v. Spaulding, 822 A.2d 1183 (Me. 2003) (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to support trial court’s judgment)
- Wrenn v. Lewis, 818 A.2d 1005 (Me. 2003) (factual findings supporting contempt reviewed for clear error)
- Ames v. Ames, 822 A.2d 1201 (Me. 2003) (denial of civil contempt reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Efstathiou v. Efstathiou, 982 A.2d 339 (Me. 2009) (burden on movant to show contempt by clear and convincing evidence; ability to comply is not all-or-nothing)
- Largay v. Largay, 752 A.2d 194 (Me. 2000) (attorney fees context in family law post-judgment proceedings)