269 A.3d 229
Me.2022Background
- Riemann and Toland executed a premarital agreement in January 2015 that included a mutual waiver of the right to seek attorney fees in the event of a divorce. They married soon after and had one child (born 2015).
- Toland became the child’s primary caregiver, later sought to relocate with the child to Ohio for better job prospects and family support; Riemann sought primary or shared primary residence in Maine.
- Divorce proceedings began in 2018; a referee heard a contested three-day final hearing in June 2020 focused on relocation and parental rights.
- The referee found, based on the statutory best-interest factors and expert/GAL testimony, that primary residence with Toland (including relocation to Ohio) served the child’s best interest and recommended awarding Toland attorney fees, concluding the premarital fee-waiver was unenforceable as applied to parental-rights litigation.
- The District Court adopted the referee’s report in full; Riemann appealed, challenging (1) the relocation/primary-residence decision and (2) the unenforceability of the attorney-fee waiver and the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Riemann) | Defendant's Argument (Toland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding primary residence to Toland if she relocated to Ohio was supported by the best-interest analysis | Referee failed to properly balance constitutional travel/right-to-reside interests vs noncustodial parent’s contact; evidence did not support award | Best-interest factors (child’s age, bonds, stability, family support, GAL opinion) support primary residence with Toland, and Toland would facilitate Riemann’s contact | Affirmed — referee’s findings supported by substantial evidence; proper balancing of parents’ rights and child’s best interest |
| Whether a premarital agreement provision waiving the parties’ right to seek attorney fees is enforceable when parental-rights (custody/relocation) are litigated | Waiver is valid under UPAA and enforceable; section 608 provides exclusive grounds for invalidating premarital agreements | Fee-waiver undermines court’s ability to resolve child best-interest disputes and may prevent effective litigation; public policy forbids enforcement as applied to child-related litigation | Reversed as to enforceability — waiver unenforceable as applied to litigation over parental rights because it conflicts with public policy protecting children’s best interests |
| Whether the referee properly awarded attorney fees (amount and findings) | Referee should have made explicit findings that Toland could not afford counsel | Fee awards are discretionary under 19-A §105; factfinder must consider relative ability to pay and totality of circumstances; here record supported $50,000 award | Affirmed — award within referee’s discretion; sufficient factual basis and supporting financial materials in record |
Key Cases Cited
- Wechsler v. Simpson, 131 A.3d 909 (Me. 2016) (deference to referee findings; review standards)
- Akers v. Akers, 44 A.3d 311 (Me. 2012) (factfinder credibility and findings support)
- Light v. D’Amato, 105 A.3d 447 (Me. 2014) (balancing custodial parent’s travel/residence rights with noncustodial parent’s contact rights in relocation cases)
- Low v. Low, 251 A.3d 735 (Me. 2021) (best-interest balancing among parental rights)
- Pearson v. Wendell, 125 A.3d 1149 (Me. 2015) (standards for awarding attorney fees in domestic relations matters)
- Estate of Martin, 938 A.2d 812 (Me. 2008) (interpretation of UPAA provisions and limits of prior case law)
- Court v. Kiesman, 850 A.2d 330 (Me. 2004) (contracts against public policy where they impair child support or welfare)
- In re Marriage of Erpelding, 917 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 2018) (premarital fee-waiver unenforceable as to child custody/support matters on public-policy grounds)
- In re Marriage of Burke, 980 P.2d 265 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (fee-waiver unenforceable as applied to parenting-plan issues)