Corcoran v. Marie
12 A.3d 71
| Me. | 2011Background
- Jan M. Corcoran and Linda Marie divorced in 2007; judgment incorporated a self-drafted spousal support agreement
- Agreement provided $2200 lump sum and then $160 per month or as needed to meet deficit of Marie's basic living expenses
- Corcoran paid $2200 and has paid $160 monthly since June 2008 as required
- Marie moved for contempt and enforcement in 2009; court denied contempt for lack of accounting but granted relief to enforce
- Enforcement order defined basic living expenses, found a monthly deficit of $650–$750, and awarded arrearage over $16,000
- Court amended the judgment prospectively to $200 per week and created automatic budget-based adjustment mechanism
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court modify the divorce judgment via enforcement order? | Corcoran: amendment constitutes substantive modification | Marie: court clarified ambiguity to effect purpose of judgment | Clarification exceeded authority; vacate judgment |
| Was the divorce judgment ambiguous regarding basic living expenses and deficit? | Corcoran: language reasonably ambiguous | Marie: ambiguity justifies clarification | Ambiguity found; clarification appropriate but not substantive change |
| May a court clarify a judgment without considering modification procedures in 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A? | Corcoran: no modification procedure followed | Marie: clarification can occur to effect the award | Clarification cannot alter substantive terms; judgment vacated |
| Was the arrearage and automatic adjustment mechanism properly adjudicated? | Corcoran: improper retroactive effects | Marie: arrearage properly assessed; automatic mechanism necessary | Arrearage and mechanism were improper due to overbroad amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenwood v. Greenwood, 2000 ME 37 (Me. 2000) (ambiguous divorce judgments reviewed for alignment with judgment as a whole)
- Thompson v. Rothman, 2002 ME 39 (Me. 2002) (two-part test for clarifying judgments; deference when ambiguous)
- Pettinelli v. Yost, 2007 ME 121 (Me. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review for clarifications; factors for discretion)
- Bliss v. Bliss, 583 A.2d 208 (Me. 1990) (clarification cannot be used to make material changes to original judgment)
- Yoder v. Yoder, 2007 ME 27 (Me. 2007) (court authority to approve or reject settlement terms; role of court)