Miliano v. Miliano
2012 ME 100
| Me. | 2012Background
- Miliano divorce in 2010; six real properties largely premaritally acquired by Alfred; court treated them as marital, divided about two-thirds to Alfred and one-third to Renée; Renée awarded $2,500/month spousal support pending remarriage or death; record lacked evidence of values at purchase and at marriage; court acknowledged lack of precise valuation prevented proper nonmarital/marital partition; matter remanded for clarification or reconsideration of property and support awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether six parcels were properly classified and divided as marital/nonmarital property. | Alfred’s parcels were premarital nonmarital property, with no proven postmarital increase. | Renée argues for equitable consideration due to contributions; court should allocate value. | Remanded for clarification/reconsideration due to insufficient record on nonmarital/marital components. |
| Whether the court wrongly allocated nonmarital property by failing to quantify equitable interests. | Properties were Alfred’s nonmarital property; no quantified equity claims supported. | Renée had potential equitable claims; records incomplete on values. | Remand to determine and quantify any equitable claims and proper division. |
| Whether spousal support award was appropriate given the division and record. | Award reflects reliance on marital contributions and intent to offset property disposition. | Record incomplete to determine just support; potential to adjust on remand. | Remand permitted to reconsider spousal support on clarified record. |
| Whether the court properly followed 19-A M.R.S. § 953(1)-(2) burdens of proof and statutory framework. | Court should set apart nonmarital property first and then divide marital property. | Need for evidence of value increases and postmarital contributions to establish marital component. | Remand to allow proper evidentiary development and application of burdens. |
| Whether the court’s uncertainty about its intent undermines appellate review. | Ambiguity prevented effective review of property and support rulings. | Clarification on remand will resolve the ambiguity. | Remand with authority to reopen and amend judgments as needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grishman v. Grishman, 407 A.2d 9 (Me. 1979) (premarital property and nonmarital status; initial framework for classification)
- Ayotte v. Ayotte, 966 A.2d 883 (Me. 2009) (burden of proof and review when record lacks needed evidence)
- Williams v. Williams, 645 A.2d 1118 (Me. 1994) (source of funds rule; postmarital increases and marital component)
- Spooner v. Spooner, 850 A.2d 354 (Me. 2004) (presumption of marital property when title is transferred to joint tenancy)
- Coppola v. Coppola, 2007 ME 147 (Me. 2007) (source of funds rule and valuation of mixed property)
- Knowles v. Knowles, 588 A.2d 315 (Me. 1991) (valuation of marital component; source of funds)
- Zeolla v. Zeolla, 2006 ME 118 (Me. 2006) (court authority to resolve equity claims in divorce context)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 2004 ME 79 (Me. 2004) (limits on Maine recognition of equitable claims; nonmarital property)