Joyce E. Mitchell v. Alexander S. Krieckhaus
2017 ME 70
| Me. | 2017Background
- Joyce Mitchell and Alexander Krieckhaus reached a written settlement at a judicially-assisted settlement conference on May 10, 2016; they signed a stipulated order on children’s issues and waived appeal generally.
- The stipulated order reserved finalization of a child support order: the court agreed to draft child support worksheets and provide them to the parties for review before entry of judgment.
- Proposed child support worksheets differed: Krieckhaus’s draft used the supplemental worksheet premised on the parties providing “substantially equal care” for their son (which produced Mitchell as payor); Mitchell’s subsequent letter and worksheets opposed that characterization and produced a different payor.
- The District Court nevertheless entered a divorce judgment on June 15, 2016, adopting the supplemental worksheet and stating the court concluded the parties agreed to substantially equal care based on the record and stipulation.
- Mitchell moved for findings, reconsideration, and deviation from the guidelines; the court denied those motions without an evidentiary hearing. Mitchell appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mitchell) | Defendant's Argument (Krieckhaus) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mitchell waived the right to appeal the child support computation after signing a settlement with a general appeal waiver | Mitchell reserved review/approval of the child support order and thus did not waive appeal on that issue | The waiver bars appeal because Mitchell agreed to the stipulated order and should have anticipated the substantially equal-care provision | Court: Mitchell did not waive appeal as to the child support computation; she reserved that issue and is entitled to appellate review |
| Whether the court could determine that parents provided "substantially equal care" without an evidentiary hearing | Mitchell contends there was a disputed factual issue requiring an evidentiary hearing; parties never agreed to substantially equal care | Krieckhaus contends the settlement terms and stipulation established substantially equal care | Court: Finding of substantially equal care is factual and, when disputed, requires an evidentiary hearing; the court erred by deciding it without a hearing |
| Proper standard and burden for applying the supplemental child support worksheet (substantially equal care) | Mitchell argues the statutory definition and requirements were not shown; burden is on proponent of equal care | Krieckhaus argues the settlement supports use of supplemental worksheet | Court: Burden is on the party asserting substantially equal care; determination requires fact-finding beyond mere shared residence or shared schedule |
| Whether the judgment should be vacated and remanded for further proceedings | Mitchell asks for vacatur and remand for hearing and recalculation | Krieckhaus implicitly opposes vacatur, arguing the judgment correctly applied the guidelines | Court: Vacated child support paragraph imposing obligation on Mitchell and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on child support computation |
Key Cases Cited
- 2301 Cong. Realty, LLC v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., 106 A.3d 1131 (Me. 2014) (settlements placed on the record and accepted by the court are enforceable as judgments)
- Page v. Page, 671 A.2d 956 (Me. 1996) (court may enter judgment on recorded settlement; exception where party challenges sufficiency or authority of agreement)
- Lane v. Maine Cent. R.R., 572 A.2d 1084 (Me. 1990) (authority on challenges to stipulations and attorney authority)
- Lowd v. Dimoulas, 866 A.2d 867 (Me. 2005) (court must provide hearing on disputed family-law issues when matter is partially resolved)
- Yoder v. Yoder, 916 A.2d 228 (Me. 2007) (procedural requirement to resolve disputed issues with a hearing)
- Jabar v. Jabar, 899 A.2d 796 (Me. 2006) (finding substantially equal care is a factual inquiry requiring findings)
- Pratt v. Sidney, 967 A.2d 685 (Me. 2009) (party asserting substantially equal care bears burden; fact-finder must resolve dispute)
- In re Adden B., 144 A.3d 1158 (Me. 2016) (procedural due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)