McBride v. Worth
184 A.3d 14
| Me. | 2018Background
- McBride and Worth divorced in 2009 after 19 years; divorce judgment required Worth to pay $150/week spousal support and awarded the marital home to McBride with a directive that she refinance "as soon as the mortgage market improves and she is financially capable."
- Post-judgment litigation over spousal support was extensive, with multiple enforcement and contempt proceedings dating from 2012–2016.
- McBride moved in Sept. 2016 to enforce spousal support, alleging $13,032.97 in arrears; Worth moved to enforce the refinance requirement and for division of omitted property.
- At a May 25, 2017 hearing the court found Worth in arrears $11,055.25 as of that date, affirmed his ongoing obligation of $150/week, and entered judgment for that arrearage with post-judgment interest.
- The court issued an income withholding order described as withholding $300 every two weeks (explained as $300 for ongoing support + $300 toward arrears), and ordered McBride to apply to refinance every six months so long as Worth made regular spousal payments.
- The court awarded McBride $5,000 in attorney fees; McBride appealed, challenging the withholding order, the refinancing requirement frequency, and the attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | McBride's Argument | Worth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by using income withholding rather than ordering lump-sum payment of arrears | Court should have ordered immediate full payment of $11,055.25 | Withholding is appropriate and practical given history of nonpayment; withholding had been effective previously | Enforcement by withholding is within discretion, but judgment inconsistently described support amount and arrearage withholding; withholding order vacated and remanded for clarification |
| Whether court erred by ordering McBride to attempt refinancing every six months | Six‑month requirement is an improper modification of original judgment language | Clarification was needed because original directive was ambiguous; periodic attempts are reasonable | Court properly construed ambiguous refinance clause and reasonably required biannual attempts conditioned on proof of regular support |
| Whether court abused discretion in awarding only $5,000 of requested attorney fees | McBride sought full fees incurred | Court should limit fees based on proportionality, parties' conduct, and litigation history | Fee award was within the court's discretion and affirmed |
| Whether judgment accurately stated ongoing support obligation | McBride contended enforcement should follow original $150/week term | Court mistakenly described ongoing support as $150 per pay period (every two weeks) in judgment | Court found the judgment misstated ongoing obligation (it is $150/week); judgment partially vacated and remanded to clarify withholding amounts |
Key Cases Cited
- Brochu v. McLeod, 148 A.3d 1220 (Maine 2016) (standard for viewing evidence in support of trial-court judgment)
- Sullivan v. Rockwood, 124 A.3d 150 (Maine 2015) (motion to enforce and entitlement when party fails to comply with unambiguous judgment term)
- Curtis v. Medeiros, 152 A.3d 605 (Maine 2016) (clarification vs. modification of ambiguous divorce-judgment provisions)
- Miliano v. Miliano, 50 A.3d 534 (Maine 2012) (appellate review requires ascertainable trial-court intent)
- Smith v. Padolko, 955 A.2d 740 (Maine 2008) (standard for trial-court discretion in awarding attorney fees post-judgment)
- Voter v. Voter, 109 A.3d 626 (Maine 2015) (modification of spousal support requires showing of substantial change in financial condition)