221 A.3d 126
Me.2019Background
- Parties divorced by agreed judgment in June 2010; settlement required Elwood to contribute $750/month to college fund(s) for the children beginning May 1, 2010.
- At divorce Elwood’s income was reported at $220,000; the court later found his earning capacity about $200,000.
- Elwood repeatedly failed to comply with support and other obligations, accruing a large child-support arrearage (approx. $110,644–$128,672).
- In May 2018 Karen moved to enforce the college-expenses provision and sought an accounting of the daughter’s college fund after Elwood refused to provide funds or accounting; hearing held April 2019 (Elwood absent but represented by counsel).
- The District Court ordered Elwood to release funds in the son’s college account and provide an accounting for the daughter’s fund, and awarded Karen $4,000 in attorney fees; Elwood appealed.
- Karen separately moved for appellate sanctions under M.R. App. P. 13(f); the Law Court considered that motion with the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforcement of college-expense provision | Karen: Settlement/judgment required Elwood to fund college accounts; he failed to comply. | Elwood: Due-process defect — not officially notified/served in hand of the hearing. | Court affirmed enforcement; Elwood had notice and was represented; no prejudice shown from his absence. |
| Accounting for daughter’s college fund | Karen: Court should order Elwood to provide accounting. | Elwood: Generally contested, but offered no substantive defense at hearing. | Court ordered accounting; judgment affirmed. |
| District Court attorney-fee award (motion to enforce) | Karen: Fees reasonably incurred in prosecuting enforcement. | Elwood: Challenged award on appeal. | Court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed $4,000 fee award. |
| Sanctions for frivolous appeal (M.R. App. P. 13) | Karen: Appeal is frivolous/contumacious and merits treble costs and fees. | Elwood: Advanced various grievances, including meritless constitutional claims (e.g., Thirteenth Amendment). | Court granted sanctions: appeal frivolous; remanded to trial court to calculate attorney fees and directed clerk to certify treble costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Child of Danielle F., 207 A.3d 1193 (2019) (due-process inquiry requires notice and opportunity to be heard).
- McBride v. Worth, 184 A.3d 14 (2018) (appellate review standards for district-court discretionary rulings).
- Lincoln v. Burbank, 147 A.3d 1165 (2016) (M.R. App. P. 13 sanctions for frivolous or contumacious appeals).
- Edwards v. Campbell, 960 A.2d 324 (2008) (self-represented litigants are held to same procedural standards as represented parties).
- Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. v. Tardif, 976 A.2d 963 (2009) (pro se status does not excuse compliance with appellate rules).
- Mehlhorn v. Derby, 905 A.2d 290 (2006) (issues inadequately briefed may be treated as waived).
- Whittet v. Whittet, 167 A.3d 1258 (2017) (noncompliance with court orders not excused by pro se status).
- Waterhouse v. Kelleher, 918 A.2d 436 (2007) (when sanctions or fees on appeal are warranted, remand to trial court to determine fee amount).