Mitchell v. Krieckhaus, 158 A.3d 951

Background

Joyce Mitchell and Alexander Krieckhaus settled most divorce terms at a May 10, 2016 judicially-assisted settlement conference and signed a stipulated order on children’s issues; they waived appeal generally that day.
The stipulated order specified shared parental rights and a shared residential schedule for their son, and said child support would be calculated pursuant to the Maine Child Support Guidelines using stated incomes.
The court offered to prepare a child support worksheet and give it to the parties for review prior to entry of judgment; Mitchell’s counsel said the sheet would need "review and approval."
Counsel for Krieckhaus submitted worksheets applying the supplemental ("substantially equal care") calculation, producing an obligation for Mitchell to pay biweekly support; Mitchell’s counsel later objected in writing and submitted alternative worksheets showing Krieckhaus owing support.
The court entered a divorce judgment on June 15, 2016 adopting the supplemental worksheet calculation, finding (without an evidentiary hearing) that the parties had agreed to provide "substantially equal care." Mitchell moved for findings, reconsideration, and deviation; the court denied relief without a hearing. Mitchell appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mitchell may appeal despite waiver tied to the settlement	Mitchell reserved right to review/approve the court’s child support computation and thus preserved appellate review of that later-determined issue	Krieckhaus: waiver of appeal bars challenge because Mitchell signed the stipulated order and waived appeals	Court: Appeal permitted as to child support computation — Mitchell expressly reserved review of the computation, so waiver did not bar appellate review of that later-contested issue
Whether court could treat "substantially equal care" as agreed without hearing	Mitchell: Parties never agreed to substantially equal care; disputed factual issue requiring evidentiary hearing	Krieckhaus: Settlement terms and stipulated order show agreement to shared care, supporting use of supplemental worksheet	Court: Vacated child support portion and remanded — finding of substantially equal care is a factual issue needing an evidentiary hearing; court erred by deciding it without hearing
Whether shared residence or shared schedule alone establishes "substantially equal care"	Mitchell: Shared residence/schedule does not automatically equal substantially equal care per statute and case law	Krieckhaus: Shared residential schedule and settlement terms support application of supplemental rule	Court: Agreed with Mitchell — statutory definition requires broader factual findings; shared residence alone insufficient
Whether the trial court adequately afforded procedural due process on this disputed factual issue	Mitchell: Denied meaningful opportunity to present evidence on contested issue	Krieckhaus: Order was based on settlement and record	Court: Due process requires opportunity to be heard; absence of hearing on contentious factual matter was error

Key Cases Cited

2301 Cong. Realty, LLC v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., 106 A.3d 1131 (2014) (settlements placed on the record become enforceable when accepted by the court)
Page v. Page, 671 A.2d 956 (1996) (court may enter judgment on record settlements; narrow exceptions when agreement’s sufficiency is challenged)
Lane v. Me. Cent. R.R., 572 A.2d 1084 (1990) (exceptions to summary enforcement when counsel lacked authority or agreement sufficiency is contested)
Lowd v. Dimoulas, 866 A.2d 867 (2005) (court must provide hearing on unresolved family-law issues)
Yoder v. Yoder, 916 A.2d 228 (2007) (similar requirement to resolve disputed post-settlement issues by hearing)
In re Adden B., 144 A.3d 1158 (2016) (procedural due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
Jabar v. Jabar, 899 A.2d 796 (2006) (determination whether parents provide substantially equal care requires factual findings)
Pratt v. Sidney, 967 A.2d 685 (2009) (party asserting substantially equal care bears burden; fact-finder must decide disputed issue)