203 A.3d 812
Me.2019Background
- Donald and Joyce Durkin married in 1980; Donald built the marital residence on his parents' land and later received the Buxton property as nonmarital property.
- The parties acquired an adjacent parcel jointly; at divorce the Buxton property was awarded to Donald as nonmarital property and the adjacent parcel to him as well.
- Donald assumed virtually all marital debt (about $117,900) and his nonmarital Buxton property had substantial equity (about $320,000).
- Joyce sought a lump-sum spousal-support award secured by Donald’s nonmarital real property and, alternatively, nominal spousal support.
- The trial court denied a lump-sum secured by the nonmarital property, stating it could not force sale or a loan on nonmarital assets to create a fund for spousal support, and denied Joyce’s motion for amended findings; Joyce appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may consider nonmarital assets when deciding spousal support | Joyce: court must consider Donald’s nonmarital assets in deciding support | Donald: court treated Buxton property as nonmarital and thus not available for forced sale or loan | Court: trial court may and should consider nonmarital assets as part of financial resources for support determination |
| Whether the court can order lump-sum support secured by nonmarital real property (force sale or loan) | Joyce: court can allocate or secure a lump-sum award by imposing remedies against nonmarital property (e.g., lien) | Donald: property is nonmarital and court stated it cannot force sale or loan against it | Court: trial court misstated the law; it may, if it awards support, secure that award by imposing a lien on nonmarital real property |
| Whether nominal spousal support should have been awarded | Joyce: at minimum nominal support should be awarded | Donald: no support from nonmarital asset; trial court denied nominal support | Court: remanded for clarification and reconsideration of support (including nominal) in light of proper legal standards |
| Whether trial court's judgment was sufficiently clear | Joyce: judgment unclear about whether court considered nonmarital assets or believed it lacked authority to secure support | Donald: (implicit) judgment reflected court's view that nonmarital asset was untouchable | Court: judgment was unclear and legal analysis was incorrect; vacated and remanded for clarification and possible reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. Douglas, 43 A.3d 965 (Me. 2012) (standard for reviewing trial court findings)
- Bonner v. Emerson, 105 A.3d 1023 (Me. 2014) (de novo review of court authority questions)
- Jandreau v. LaChance, 116 A.3d 1273 (Me. 2015) (trial court discretion in awarding spousal support)
- Smith v. Smith, 419 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1980) (court must consider total financial resources, including nonmarital assets)
- Miliano v. Miliano, 50 A.3d 534 (Me. 2012) (court may impose a lien on nonmarital property to secure spousal support)
- Booth v. Booth, 640 A.2d 1063 (Me. 1994) (divorce court authority to impose a lien to enforce remedies)