Matthew W. Buck v. Lisa H. Buck
113 A.3d 1095
Me.2015Background
- Lisa and Matthew Buck divorced in District Court; judgment awarded Lisa spousal and child support but denied retroactive child support and attorney fees.
- The parties have two minor children with significant chronic health issues, creating uncertain and potentially substantial future medical expenses.
- Each party was awarded primary residence of one child by agreement, requiring the court to consider each parent’s financial responsibility for a child.
- The record contained limited and vague information about future medical costs and Lisa’s eligibility or pursuit of MaineCare/Medicaid despite her SSDI eligibility.
- Lisa began cohabiting with another adult in February 2013; her counsel expressly asked the court to find cohabitation at trial, though Lisa later argued cohabitation was a financial necessity.
- The court imputed income to Lisa, declined retroactive child support and attorney fees, and set an initial nominal spousal award ($1/year) transitioning to $200/month after a child-support obligation ended, with termination tied to vesting of Matthew’s military pension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lisa) | Defendant's Argument (Matthew) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of spousal support | Award is too low to meet Lisa’s needs, particularly health care costs | Award is appropriate given circumstances and other factors | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion in award amount |
| Consideration of cohabitation | Court erred in considering cohabitation because it was a financial necessity | Cohabitation was relevant and supported by record; properly considered | Affirmed; cohabitation properly considered and supported by evidence |
| Retroactive child support | Court should have awarded retroactive child support | No basis for retroactive award given record | Affirmed; declining retroactive child support not an abuse of discretion |
| Imputation of income to Lisa | Court misstated or overstated Lisa’s gross income | Imputation was appropriate under circumstances | Affirmed; imputing income was within court’s discretion |
| Attorney fees & survivor-benefit designation | Lisa sought fees and designation on unvested pension | Matthew opposed fees and designation | Affirmed; denial of attorney fees upheld; pension-designation argument undeveloped/waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Robinson, 751 A.2d 457 (Me. 2000) (deference to trial court in domestic relations findings)
- Sloan v. Christianson, 43 A.3d 978 (Me. 2012) (review of factual findings in family cases in light most favorable to trial court)
- Pelletier v. Pelletier, 36 A.3d 903 (Me. 2012) (standards for reviewing domestic relations findings)
- Grant v. Hamm, 48 A.3d 789 (Me. 2012) (deference to trial court’s appraisal of testimony)
- Sorey v. Sorey, 718 A.2d 568 (Me. 1998) (court may consider any appropriate factors for spousal support)
- Charette v. Charette, 60 A.3d 1264 (Me. 2013) (cohabitation may be relevant to support determinations)
- Potter v. Potter, 926 A.2d 1193 (Me. 2007) (upholding structured/conditional spousal support awards)
- Sheikh v. Haji, 32 A.3d 1065 (Me. 2011) (permitting imputation of income in family support matters)
- Holbrook v. Holbrook, 976 A.2d 990 (Me. 2009) (standards for retroactive child support awards)
- Largay v. Largay, 752 A.2d 194 (Me. 2000) (discretionary nature of awarding attorney fees in family cases)