Edward J. Harshman v. Sheila C. Harshman
158 A.3d 506
Me.2017Background
- Edward and Sheila Harshman married in 2000 and have two minor children; Sheila provides full-time homeschooling and has minimal income from a Nantucket rental ($5,700/year).
- Edward is a physician who closed his practice during the divorce, worked part-time doing health screenings, and has a history of substantial discretionary trust distributions (often $6,000–$9,000/month; >$100,000 in 2014 and 2015).
- The court found Edward voluntarily underemployed and that he and the trustee (his sister) colluded to manipulate the appearance of his income and to avoid spousal support obligations.
- Edward sought admission of voluminous family trust documents; the court excluded them as hearsay, then again under Rule 902(11), and finally excluded late-produced trust financial records as a discovery sanction.
- The court calculated Edward’s annual income at $170,000 (including trust distributions) and Sheila’s at $5,700, awarded Sheila sole parental rights per the parties’ agreement, divided assets/debts, and set child and spousal support; Edward appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Edward) | Defendant's Argument (Sheila) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trust distributions are includable in gross income for support | Distributions were discretionary, not legally owed, and trusts lost value so they are not an "ongoing source" | Distributions were historically reliable and used to support the family; thus ongoing income | Court held trust distributions may be included as ongoing gross income and used in calculating support (income found $170,000) |
| Whether trial court erred in imputing or calculating incomes | Edward argued court overstated his income and relied on flawed accountant computations | Sheila relied on expert accountant and evidence of historical trust distributions; court credited that evidence | Court found competent evidence supported income findings; rejected Edward’s challenges to accountant weight/credibility |
| Admissibility of trust records (hearsay / self-authentication) | Edward sought admission under M.R. Evid. 902(11) and via production; argued records would rebut court’s income findings | Sheila objected to hearsay and untimely production causing prejudice | Court excluded the documents: initially as hearsay, then denied 902(11) in interests of justice, and excluded late-produced financial records as discovery sanction |
| Appropriateness of discovery sanction excluding documents | Edward argued exclusion was improper and prejudicial to his defense | Sheila argued late disclosure (one week before trial) of voluminous detailed records prejudiced her and violated discovery | Court did not abuse discretion; sanction reasonable given delay, prejudice, prior discovery requests, and conduct during litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Efstathiou v. Aspinquid, Inc., 956 A.2d 110 (Me. 2008) (standard of review for factual findings; affirm if record contains competent evidence)
- Sloan v. Christianson, 43 A.3d 978 (Me. 2012) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the factfinder)
- Carolan v. Bell, 916 A.2d 945 (Me. 2007) (imputing income standards)
- Warner v. Warner, 807 A.2d 607 (Me. 2002) (spousal support should not be based on speculative future asset values)
- Steeves v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.C., 718 A.2d 186 (Me. 1998) (evidence and valuation limitations)
- Sweeney v. Sweeney, 534 A.2d 1290 (Me. 1987) (limitations on speculative financial judgments)
- Camp Takajo, Inc. v. SimplexGrinnell, L.P., 957 A.2d 68 (Me. 2008) (court authority to sanction for discovery failures)
- Baker's Table, Inc. v. City of Portland, 743 A.2d 237 (Me. 2000) (factors for crafting discovery sanctions)
- Harris v. Soley, 756 A.2d 499 (Me. 2000) (review of discovery sanction for abuse of discretion)
- Conlogue v. Conlogue, 890 A.2d 691 (Me. 2006) (award of attorney fees tied to party conduct)
- Flaherty v. Muther, 17 A.3d 640 (Me. 2011) (procedural points re: fees and appeal)
- Ne. Inv. Co., Inc. v. Leisure Living Cmtys., Inc., 351 A.2d 845 (Me. 1976) (ripeness/mootness in review of non-final determinations)