224 A.3d 244
Me.2020Background
- Parties married in 2010 after signing a premarital agreement drafted at Dow's request.
- Dow created and funded a 401(k) during the marriage; parties disputed whether the premarital agreement excluded that plan from the marital estate.
- Parties agreed to bifurcate proceedings: first decide the premarital-agreement issues, then proceed to the divorce trial.
- The District Court found the premarital agreement valid but construed it to apply only to property "now owned" at execution; it therefore treated the 401(k) as marital property.
- Dow did not present tracing evidence at the premarital-agreement hearing showing the 401(k) was funded with nonmarital assets; his motion to reopen the record was denied.
- On distribution the court awarded Billing approximately $126,000 (later reduced to $115,000) from the 401(k); Dow challenged valuation of nonmarital real estate on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of premarital agreement (whether it covers after-acquired property) | Dow: "all increases or additions thereto" shows parties waived marital claims in after-acquired property. | Billing: Agreement applies only to property "now owned" when executed; does not waive statutory marital-division rights in future acquisitions. | Court: Agreement unambiguous; "now owned" limits waiver to assets held at execution; no clear, unmistakable waiver of statutory marital rights. |
| Whether court erred by refusing to consider Dow's later testimony that 401(k) included nonmarital funds | Dow: At the divorce hearing he testified some 401(k) funds were nonmarital and the court should consider that. | Billing: Issue was litigated at bifurcated premarital hearing; Dow presented no tracing evidence then; court properly declined to reopen. | Court: No error—property acquired during marriage is presumptively marital; Dow failed to trace funds at the earlier hearing and court properly refused to relitigate. |
| Valuation/consideration of nonmarital real estate in property distribution | Dow: Court misstated the value/equity and failed to account for mortgage equity (~$100,000). | Billing: Court considered market value and acknowledged associated debt; set-aside was premarital property not subject to distribution. | Court: Any error in valuation/statement was harmless; market value was considered and distribution outcome would not have changed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Barrows, 945 A.2d 1217 (2008 ME 62) (contract interpretation rules for premarital agreements; ambiguity standard)
- Scott v. Fall Line Condo. Ass’n, 206 A.3d 307 (2019 ME 50) (contract interpretation reviewed de novo; give effect to plain meaning)
- Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693 (1983) (waiver of statutory rights must be clear and unmistakable)
- Bond v. Bond, 17 A.3d 1219 (2011 ME 54) (classification of property as marital or nonmarital reviewed for clear error)
- Miliano v. Miliano, 50 A.3d 534 (2012 ME 100) (nonmarital property is not subject to equitable distribution)
- Laqualia v. Laqualia, 30 A.3d 838 (2011 ME 114) (property distribution reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Durkin v. Durkin, 203 A.3d 812 (2019 ME 32) (consideration of equity in nonmarital real estate when parties present evidence)