Haskell v. Haskell
160 A.3d 1176
| Me. | 2017Background
- Pamela Haskell filed for divorce in June 2015 after 39 years of marriage; summons warned parties to keep the court informed of their correct mailing address.
- Dusty Haskell retained counsel, who later withdrew after Dusty was nonresponsive; the court ordered counsel to notify Dusty at his last known (marital home) address and kept hearings on schedule.
- Dusty did not monitor mail at the marital home, did not update his address, and failed to attend an interim August hearing or the final September hearing; the court entered interim orders and then a final divorce judgment in his absence.
- The final judgment (proposed by Pamela) divided property and awarded Pamela $6,000/month spousal support for life; the court relied on Pamela’s testimony and documentary evidence at the final hearing.
- Fifteen days later Dusty, through new counsel, moved for a new trial (Rule 59) and relief from judgment (Rule 60(b)), claiming lack of notice and that the support award lacked evidence of his ability to pay; the court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing, and Dusty appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haskell) | Defendant's Argument (Pamela) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relief from judgment under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b) | Dusty argued he lacked notice and that Pamela contributed to his ignorance of hearing dates, so excusable neglect or misconduct justified relief | Pamela argued Dusty received court notices at the marital home, failed to update address, ignored mail, and was warned of his obligations | Court affirmed denial: Dusty’s neglect and failure to monitor mail/address were not excusable; no fraud or mistake shown |
| Whether due process was satisfied | Dusty argued he was deprived of opportunity to be heard | Pamela pointed to mailed notices, interim order, and chance to appear | Held: notice and opportunity to be heard were provided; Dusty chose not to act |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support spousal support award | Dusty argued award lacked evidence of his ability to pay because he was absent from final hearing | Pamela relied on her testimony and documentary evidence (including joint tax return) presented at the hearing | Held: record contained competent evidence; court considered statutory factors and support award was reasonable |
| Abuse of discretion standard on support and Rule 60 review | Dusty argued the court misapplied discretion when denying relief and awarding support | Pamela argued court applied correct legal standards and factual findings were supported | Held: appellate review found no abuse of discretion; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooldridge v. Wooldridge, 940 A.2d 1082 (Me. 2008) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 60(b) relief)
- McLeod v. Macul, 139 A.3d 920 (Me. 2016) (three-part abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Ezell v. Lawless, 955 A.2d 202 (Me. 2008) (excusable neglect and default relief standards)
- Foley v. Adam, 638 A.2d 718 (Me. 1994) (burden to produce competent evidence on motions to set aside judgments)
- Dube v. Dube, 131 A.3d 381 (Me. 2016) (standard for reviewing spousal support decisions)
- Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. Envtl. Improvement Comm’n, 307 A.2d 1 (Me. 1973) (notice and opportunity to be heard are essential elements of due process)