Jessica A. (Nadeau) Potila v. Larry A. Nadeau
2014 ME 5
| Me. | 2014Background
- Parties divorced in District Court (Fort Kent); dispute concerned custody (primary residence), child support, allocation of dependent tax exemptions, and characterization of an increase in value of the marital residence.
- The court awarded shared primary residence of the minor children and set child support without deviating from guidelines.
- The court allocated dependent tax exemptions between the parties (denying Nadeau’s requested deviation).
- Potila sought to characterize a portion of the increase in value of Nadeau’s premarital residence as marital; the court found she failed to prove the amount of any marital contribution to the increase.
- Nadeau appealed, arguing the court understated Potila’s substance-abuse issues and earning capacity and therefore abused its discretion in parental-rights decisions; Potila cross-appealed the property ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Nadeau (appellant) Argument | Potila (respondent) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding shared primary residence was an abuse of discretion | Court ignored Potila’s substance-abuse history and misassessed her parenting capacity, so shared residence was inappropriate | Court properly considered evidence and statutory preference for shared rights; award appropriate | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; shared residence supported by record and statute |
| Whether court should have deviated from child support guidelines due to shared primary residence | Shared primary residence warrants deviation from presumptive support | No adequate proposed findings were presented to justify deviation | Affirmed — denial of deviation proper; party failed to present required proposed findings |
| Allocation of dependent tax exemptions | Nadeau sought a different allocation tied to residence arrangement | Court’s allocation was within discretion based on record | Affirmed — allocation not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Potila proved marital portion of increase in value of Nadeau’s premarital residence | Potila argued marital funds/labor increased value and portion should be marital property | Nadeau disputed marital contribution; court found Potila failed to quantify increase attributable to marital efforts/funds | Affirmed — Potila failed to meet burden to prove amount of increase attributable to marital contributions |
Key Cases Cited
- Akers v. Akers, 44 A.3d 311 (Me. 2012) (standard of review for primary residence determinations)
- Wong v. Hawk, 55 A.3d 425 (Me. 2012) (presumption against deviating from child support when proposed findings are not provided)
- Miliano v. Miliano, 50 A.3d 534 (Me. 2012) (burden to prove amount of increase in value of nonmarital property)
- Bojarski v. Bojarski, 41 A.3d 544 (Me. 2012) (standard of review for allocation of dependent tax exemption)
- Johnson v. Smith, 740 A.2d 579 (Me. 1999) (child support deviation standards)