David Sullivan v. Zoe (Sullivan) Rockwood, 124 A.3d 150

Sullivan and Rockwood divorced in Jan 2013. Judgment ordered Rockwood spousal support $2,500/month for 20 years and awarded Rockwood Sullivan’s retirement account, with Rockwood required to use distributions to pay specified taxes and outstanding medical/dental bills.
Sullivan moved (Jan 2014) to modify spousal support (alleging changed finances and cohabitation) and to enforce the judgment (alleging Rockwood received retirement funds but did not pay required debts).
At the Sep 2014 hearing, Rockwood testified she lived with a boyfriend ~July 2013–Feb 2014, received limited financial help, worked briefly for his business and sold baked goods, but has MS limiting her ability to work; she admitted not all required debts were paid though taxes were paid.
Sullivan sought to present the boyfriend as a rebuttal witness late; the court excluded him because Sullivan had not identified him earlier and the testimony was foreseeable/not shown to be genuine rebuttal.
The court denied modification of spousal support (no substantial change; cohabitation was too brief and not functionally supportive) and denied the motion to enforce for lack of proof of the exact unpaid amount.
On appeal the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the denial of the motion to enforce (because the judgment unambiguously required payment and Rockwood admitted some debts remained unpaid) and otherwise affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sullivan could call the boyfriend as a rebuttal witness	Sullivan sought to call boyfriend to rebut Rockwood’s testimony; late notice excused because rebuttal	Rockwood argued notice was insufficient; testimony foreseeable from discovery	Court did not err in excluding: testimony foreseeable and Sullivan did not show it was genuine rebuttal
Whether spousal support should be modified for changed finances/cohabitation	Sullivan: Rockwood’s income and cohabitation justify reducing/terminating support	Rockwood: income increase was limited/temporary; cohabitation was brief and not functionally supportive	No abuse of discretion: no substantial change; cohabitation too short and provided limited support
Whether court must enforce judgment requiring Rockwood to pay specified debts from retirement proceeds	Sullivan: Rockwood admitted she received funds and failed to pay some required debts; enforcement appropriate even if exact amount not proven	Rockwood disputed which debts remained unpaid and contested spreadsheet; court found lack of proof of amounts	Vacated denial of enforcement: judgment unambiguous and Rockwood admitted noncompliance; remanded to enter an order enforcing compliance

Rich v. Fuller, 666 A.2d 71 (concerning discretion to exclude non-anticipated rebuttal testimony)
Solomon’s Rock Trust v. Davis, 675 A.2d 506 (definition of rebuttal evidence)
Charette v. Charette, 60 A.3d 1264 (modification of spousal support and consideration of cohabitation)
Voter v. Voter, 109 A.3d 626 (baseline for measuring substantial change includes foreseen future circumstances)
Bonner v. Emerson, 105 A.3d 1023 (enforcement of plain-language divorce judgment)
Stockwell v. Stockwell, 908 A.2d 94 (vacating denial of motion to enforce where judgment was misinterpreted)
Metivier v. Metivier, 582 A.2d 971 (noncompliance with divorce judgment justified enforcement)
Lewin v. Skehan, 39 A.3d 58 (standard of review for post-judgment motions)
Hawksley v. Gerow, 10 A.3d 715 (review standard for post-judgment orders)
Day v. Day, 717 A.2d 914 (review of modification decisions; high standard to overturn)