Katherine E. (Tardiff) Sullivan v. Lawrence D. Tardiff
124 A.3d 652
| Me. | 2015Background
- Sullivan and Tardiff divorced in December 2011; the child’s primary residence was with Sullivan and Tardiff had two days/week contact. Child support was set by agreement at $132/week (a downward deviation from guideline amount). Tardiff also owed proportionate daycare costs and a $13,500 property-equalization payment.
- In 2013 Tardiff lost his prison job, later received a $24,000 settlement/back pay, and did not timely disclose that income in discovery or update his financial affidavit until April 2014.
- Sullivan moved for contempt (alleging unpaid daycare, property settlement, and attorney fees); Tardiff moved to reduce child support based on job loss. The matters were consolidated and heard in January 2014; parental-rights issues were resolved in Sullivan’s favor in February 2014.
- The court found (July 2014) a substantial change in circumstances and modified child support to guideline amounts ($152.28/week retroactive to service in 2013; $161.19/week for 2014 onward), based on incomes of $60,700 (Tardiff) and $14,016 (Sullivan).
- The court found Tardiff voluntarily underemployed, able to earn about $60,000/year (including pension), in contempt for unpaid obligations, ordered $600/month toward debts, turnover/sale of his sports-card collection, disclosure of financial records, and imposed 90 days jail suspended for 36 months as coercive sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sullivan) | Defendant's Argument (Tardiff) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child support should be reduced after Tardiff’s job loss | Support should be recalculated per guidelines given changed circumstances and incomes | Job loss justifies reduction; court erred increasing support | Court affirmed increase to guideline amount; no substantial reduction in Tardiff’s ability to pay was shown |
| Whether the trial court properly imputed income/declared voluntary underemployment | Imputation appropriate because Tardiff has qualifications, income history, and chose lower-paid work | Tardiff asserted current earnings lower (~$15,000) and court should not impute $40,000 employment income | Court did not clearly err: found voluntary underemployment and imputed ~$40,000 plus pension for ~$60,000 total |
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances to justify modification | Sullivan’s reduced income (to SSDI ~$14,016) constituted a substantial change increasing child’s need | Tardiff argued no substantial change supporting an increase | Court reasonably inferred substantial change in Sullivan’s income (≈20% drop) and thus could recalculate support under guidelines |
| Whether contempt findings and remedial sanctions were appropriate | Contempt proper because Tardiff failed to pay obligations, had ability to pay; turnover and disclosure are proper enforcement; coercive jail permissible | Tardiff denied ability to pay and challenged turnover, financial disclosure, and coercive imprisonment | Court’s contempt findings upheld by clear-evidence record; turnover, disclosure, and suspended coercive imprisonment were within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Weston v. Weston, 40 A.3d 934 (review standards for child support modification)
- Jabar v. Jabar, 899 A.2d 796 (burden to show decreased support due to substantial change)
- Twomey v. Twomey, 888 A.2d 272 (comparing prior and new income to determine substantial change)
- Koszegi v. Erickson, 855 A.2d 1168 (trial court may impute income for voluntary underemployment)
- Stacey-Sotiriou v. Sotiriou, 106 A.3d 417 (standard of review for voluntary underemployment findings)
- Wrenn v. Lewis, 818 A.2d 1005 (factors for imputing earning capacity)
- Lewin v. Skehan, 39 A.3d 58 (standards for reviewing civil contempt findings)
- Hogan v. Veno, 909 A.2d 638 (review of remedial orders in contempt proceedings)
- Murphy v. Bartlett, 86 A.3d 610 (coercive imprisonment improper where contemnor lacks present ability to comply)
- Pelletier v. Pelletier, 36 A.3d 903 (procedural requirements when seeking additional findings of fact)
- Bell v. Bell, 697 A.2d 835 (obligation to propose specific additional findings under Rule 52)