Hawksley v. Gerow, 10 A.3d 715

Gerow appeals a district court enforcement of a divorce judgment against Hawksley.
Divorce divided two H&R Block franchises: Bucksport (set aside to Gerow) and Belfast (to Hawksley).
Transfer of the Belfast franchise was not explicitly detailed in the judgment; H&R Block would not transfer it to Hawksley.
Gerow operated the Belfast franchise for years, later selling it for $180,000 plus $10,000 for equipment; no post-judgment modification was filed by either party.
Court found Hawksley’s delay in filing the enforcement motion not prejudicial and awarded Hawksley $150,000 after allocating debt between the parties.
Court concluded the award was an adjustment to the enforcement mechanism, not an impermissible modification of the property division.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether laches bars enforcement of the divorce judgment	Hawksley contends laches does not bar, given lack of prejudice	Gerow argues delay prejudices her and improper enforcement	Laches does not bar enforcement; no clear prejudice shown and no abuse of discretion
Whether the enforcement award modified the property distribution	Hawksley contends it was an enforcement mechanism adjustment	Gerow argues it constitutes impermissible modification	The award is an adjustment to the enforcement mechanism, not a modification of the property distribution

Ward v. Ward, 2008 ME 25 (Me. 2008) (discusses when enforcement may or may not modify a judgment's terms)
St. Hilaire v. St. Hilaire, 526 A.2d 28 (Me. 1987) (limits on modification under enforcement context)
Dow v. Adams, 1998 ME 48, 707 A.2d 793 (Me. 1998) (laches defense in post‑divorce proceedings)
Fisco v. Dep't of Human Servs., 659 A.2d 274 (Me. 1995) (when both parties are at fault, neither may enforce laches against the other)
Black v. Black, 2004 ME 21, 842 A.2d 1280 (Me. 2004) (enforcement may adjust mechanisms but not directly modify property)