Lisa Lesko v. Theodore Stanislaw, 2014 ME 3

Background

Lisa Lesko (family physician) and Theodore Stanislaw (former homemaker and music teacher) married in 1992; they have one minor child.
Stanislaw was arrested in 2008, later convicted of sexual abuse of girls who were his piano students, and began serving a sentence in 2010; he has not worked since his arrest and has had no contact with the child.
Lesko filed for divorce in 2010; trial focused on division of marital property and debts (real property, retirement, life insurance policies, bank accounts); parties agreed Lesko would retain the residence.
Lesko introduced evidence (over objection) of the financial impact of Stanislaw’s crimes: tens of thousands in legal fees paid from marital funds, loss of approximately fifteen patients from her practice, loss of household labor and financial contribution, and ongoing expenses borne solely by Lesko.
The District Court found Stanislaw’s conduct produced substantial financial harm (characterized as financial misconduct), divided the marital estate roughly 73% to Lesko / 27% to Stanislaw, and allocated each party their life insurance policy with associated loans.
Stanislaw appealed, claiming insufficient findings connecting misconduct to the property division, improper consideration of criminal conduct and punishment for exercising the right to counsel, and an inequitable division of property.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lesko)	Defendant's Argument (Stanislaw)	Held
Did the trial court make sufficient findings linking financial misconduct to the property division?	Court provided findings on legal fees, loss of patients, loss of co-parent income, and reduced earning potential—sufficient to justify division.	Findings were insufficiently detailed to show causal link between alleged financial misconduct and the distribution.	Held: Findings were adequate for appellate review; court explained the financial impacts it relied upon.
May a court consider a spouse's criminal conduct (and its financial consequences) when dividing marital property?	Yes — financial consequences are a proper factor under §953(1) and nonexclusive relevant considerations.	No — considering criminal conduct exceeded statutory authority and improperly introduced fault.	Held: Court did not err; it may consider economic effects of criminal conduct (not moral fault) in property division.
Does using marital funds to pay a criminal defense constitute financial misconduct or violate right to counsel if considered?	The fiscal impact of using marital funds for defense is a legitimate economic factor in division.	Considering those expenditures penalizes exercise of constitutional right to counsel and doesn't meet narrow definitions of financial misconduct.	Held: Court may consider such expenditures as an economic factor; consideration did not infringe right to counsel or unfairly punish defendant.
Was the resulting 73%/27% split and allocation of life-insurance debts inequitable?	The division reflected overall equity after accounting for losses to Lesko, nonmarital components, childcare costs, and Stanislaw’s reduced earning capacity.	The split was unfair and life-insurance debts were improperly treated contrary to parties’ intent.	Held: Distribution supported by competent evidence and justified; allocation of policies with associated debts was appropriate.

Key Cases Cited

Peters v. Peters, 697 A.2d 1254 (Me. 1997) (trial courts must make findings sufficient for review)
Miele v. Miele, 832 A.2d 760 (Me. 2003) (courts not required to detail rationale for every finding)
Leary v. Leary, 926 A.2d 186 (Me. 2007) (property division reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Pettinelli v. Yost, 930 A.2d 1074 (Me. 2007) (courts exceed discretion when considering prohibited factors)
Hebert v. Hebert, 475 A.2d 422 (Me. 1984) (incarceration and lack of living expenses form part of present economic circumstances)
Robinson v. Robinson, 554 A.2d 1173 (Me. 1989) (equal division carries no presumption; certain factors are improper but not applicable here)
Miliano v. Miliano, 50 A.3d 534 (Me. 2012) (court must assign value to items of marital property subject to distribution)
Doucette v. Washburn, 766 A.2d 578 (Me. 2001) (appellate court will not disturb distribution supported by competent record evidence)
Brown v. Habrle, 940 A.2d 1091 (Me. 2008) (trial court should justify total award to each party considering §953 factors)
Osier v. Osier, 410 A.2d 1027 (Me. 1980) (avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings; balance conflicts deliberately)