Dorothy D. Black v. James A. Black
2017 ME 124
| Me. | 2017Background
- James and Dorothy Black divorced in 2012 by a judgment incorporating a settlement agreement that James drafted pro se. The judgment allocated to Dorothy $455 in Social Security and $378.50 monthly “apartment income” from a rental unit on property awarded to James; James was allocated $812 in Social Security and the remainder of the $800 monthly rent.
- Dorothy filed a contempt motion in August 2015 alleging James failed to pay the $378.50 monthly rent share; she sought remedial sanctions and costs.
- At a March 2016 hearing (both parties represented), James admitted he stopped paying for eleven months beginning March 2015, had been receiving the full $800 rent since April 2015, and had assets exceeding the arrearage.
- The court found the judgment clearly required the $378.50 payments and that James had the ability to pay, but declined to find contempt, explaining it would have found contempt had James been represented at the time of the divorce.
- Despite denying contempt, the court ordered James to pay Dorothy $4,163.50 (eleven months of missed payments) plus costs and issued execution; James appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could grant relief after denying a contempt motion | Dorothy: she proved contempt and is entitled to remedial relief (arrearage and costs) under Rule 66 | James: once the court denied contempt it lacked authority to grant any relief on that motion | Court: although it nominally denied contempt, its reasoning shows it found the elements met; remedial payment order falls within Rule 66 authority; affirmed |
| Whether James was prejudiced by the remedy absent an explicit contempt finding | Dorothy: not prejudiced; remedy compensatory and within court power | James: harmed because relief followed a denial of contempt | Court: no prejudice shown given court effectively concluded contempt elements and issued an appropriate remedial order; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Bartlett, 86 A.3d 610 (Maine 2014) (clear-and-convincing standard and remedial sanctions for civil contempt)
- Ezell v. Lawless, 955 A.2d 202 (Maine 2008) (pro se status does not entitle a party to special consideration)
- U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Mackenzie, 149 A.3d 267 (Maine 2016) (appellee must cross-appeal to obtain a modification of judgment different from appellant’s request)