Heather J. Thumith v. Kenneth D. Thumith
2013 ME 67
Me.2013Background
- Heather Thumith and Kenneth Thumith were married ~13.5 years and have two children aged four and eleven.
- Kenneth has a significantly higher earning capacity ($105,000 base salary plus bonuses) than Heather (about $19,000–$30,000 prior, current $19,000).
- The parties separated in June 2011; they stipulated to shared parental rights and responsibilities for the children.
- The district court awarded child support of $262 per week to Heather and ordered spousal support totaling $1,000/mo for 3 years, then $750/mo for 2 years, then $500/mo for 1.5 years.
- Property division: Heather received the Rockland home (~$130,000) with a $121,000 mortgage to refinance or sell within a year, plus other items; Kenneth received a vehicle and a $27,884.14 401(k).
- Debts were allocated: Heather $16,498.61 in marital debt; Kenneth $14,052.20 plus $7,200 nonmarital student loan debt; Heather’s net property value ~($9,501.39) if refinance issues arise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the property and debt should be divided equally or unequally | Heather contends the court should reflect Kenneth's higher earning capacity. | Kenneth argues an unequal split may be warranted given earnings disparity. | Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration of property and debt division. |
| Sufficiency of findings to support equal division | Heather points to lack of explicit justification for equal division. | Kenneth argues findings reasonably support equal division under §953(1). | Remand required; trial court must articulate the support for equal division. |
| Impact of Heather's past employment decisions on division | Heather emphasizes homemaking and child-rearing contributions. | Court acknowledged Kenneth's earnings gap but did not rely on it to justify unequal division. | No explicit basis found in the record to depart from equal division; remand permitted reconsideration. |
| Effect of potential refinancing and sale on equity allocation | Heather may be unable to refinance; equity allocation may be overstated. | Court did not determine refinance feasibility; equity to Heather contingent on refinancing/sale outcomes. | Remand to reassess equity and refinance feasibility; spousal support/attorney fees may also need reconsideration. |
| Spousal support framework on remand | Heather challenges the structure and amount of spousal support given future earning prospects. | Court recognized potential for decreasing need for support over time. | Spousal support subject to re-evaluation on remand; authority to order descending support remains valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Robinson, 554 A.2d 1173 (Me. 1989) (homemaker contribution and earning capacity can affect property division)
- Hess v. Hess, 2007 ME 82 (Me. 2007) (factors for just division include economic circumstances and contributions)
- Douglas v. Douglas, 43 A.3d 965 (Me. 2012) (court must not infer findings from record when findings requested)
- Catlett v. Catlett, 970 A.2d 287 (Me. 2009) (economic misconduct findings reviewed for clear error)
- Nadeau v. Nadeau, 957 A.2d 108 (Me. 2008) (economic misconduct can inform property division)
- Raisin v. Raisin, 896 A.2d 268 (Me. 2006) (spousal support considerations and duration considerations)