Elena Wechsler v. John P. Simpson, 131 A.3d 909

Background

Parties: Elena Wechsler (radiologist) and John P. Simpson (former business owner, later part-time attorney); married 2008; two children (2009, 2011).
Property: House purchased by Simpson pre-marriage (2004) later conveyed as joint tenants (appraised $690,000; mortgage ~$351,492); various bank accounts and debts including $90,000 credit-card debt assigned to Simpson.
Procedural posture: Parties agreed to referee; referee held hearing, adopted GAL report, recommended primary residence to Wechsler, 2 days/week contact to Simpson, imputed incomes (Wechsler $216,000; Simpson $30,000), and an unequal property split favoring Simpson in net value; Simpson objected; trial court adopted report with one added sentence clarifying denial of shared residence; Simpson appealed.
Guardian ad litem: Recommended primary residence with Wechsler based on Maine best-interest factors (noting Wechsler as primary caretaker and children’s young ages); referenced Washington guidelines only as informative.
Property division: Referee classified premarital USAA account balance as Wechsler’s nonmarital property and treated the house as marital (conveyed into joint title); awarded Simpson net marital property > $462,000 and Wechsler ~ $361,000; assigned Simpson $90,000 in credit-card debt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether GAL and referee relied on improper (out-of-state) standard for children’s best interests	Simpson: GAL relied on Washington guidelines rather than Maine’s §1653(3) factors	Court/Wechsler: GAL used Washington material only as informative and applied Maine statutory factors	Held: GAL and referee complied with Maine law; analysis tracked §1653(3) factors
Whether denial of shared primary residential care was inadequately explained	Simpson: Referee failed to expressly explain why shared primary residential care was not in children’s best interests	Wechsler: Referee adopted GAL findings concluding primary residence with Wechsler, which implicitly explains why shared care is not appropriate	Held: Implicit and adopted findings suffice; denial supported by record and within discretion
Whether trial court erred by adding statutory explanatory sentence to referee’s report without taking more evidence	Simpson: Court should have received more evidence or recommitted before supplementing report	Court/Wechsler: Added sentence merely clarified referee’s intent and was supported by existing findings	Held: Modification was supported by referee’s findings; no further evidence required
Whether property division was unjust or failed to consider statutory factors (§953(1))	Simpson: Referee ignored his premarital contributions (house, $90,000) and the debt assigned to him; failed to account for economic circumstances and value set apart	Wechsler: Referee considered contributions, classified property correctly (house transmuted to marital; premarital USAA balance set aside), and awarded Simpson net greater value despite debt	Held: Findings supported by competent evidence; division within referee’s discretion and not an abuse

Key Cases Cited

Raisen v. Raisen, 896 A.2d 268 (Me. 2006) (referee findings adopted by court become court findings)
Warren v. Warren, 866 A.2d 97 (Me. 2005) (deference to referee findings; standards for reviewing referee recommendations)
Grant v. Hamm, 48 A.3d 789 (Me. 2012) (deference because referee hears witnesses firsthand)
Young v. Young, 120 A.3d 106 (Me. 2015) (standard of review for trial court findings and discretionary rulings)
Hennessy v. Fairley, 796 A.2d 41 (Me. 2002) (trial court may modify referee report and appellate review of modification)
Long v. Long, 697 A.2d 1317 (Me. 1997) (setting aside premarital property when shown to remain separate)
Burrow v. Burrow, 100 A.3d 1104 (Me. 2014) (transmutation of premarital real estate by placing into joint title)
Spooner v. Spooner, 850 A.2d 354 (Me. 2004) (principles on characterization of property in divorce)