179 A.3d 307
Me.2018Background
- Terry L. Greenleaf (appellant) and Stacy B. (Greenleaf) Mooar divorced after ~19 years; five minor children and one adult child are involved; Mooar is largely a stay-at-home parent receiving adoption subsidies, Greenleaf works for the Town of Jay.
- The parties lived on real estate in Jay that Greenleaf received from his parents before marriage and on which a mobile home (purchased pre-marriage) sits; mortgage balance and present value were stated in the judgment.
- Trial court awarded the Jay real estate and its debt to Greenleaf, ordered liquidation and division of Greenleaf’s retirement account (60% to Mooar, 40% to Greenleaf), child support/arrears payment, and spousal support of $350/week for 9.75 years to Mooar.
- Greenleaf filed a Rule 52 motion seeking additional findings on (1) classification of the Jay real estate as marital or nonmarital and (2) ability to pay the spousal support award; the court granted only a limited amendment and denied the rest.
- Because the court denied the Rule 52 motion on those issues and its judgment lacked express findings on classification and ability to pay, Greenleaf appealed; the court of appeals vacated portions of the judgment and remanded for further findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the real estate in Jay was properly classified as marital or nonmarital | Greenleaf: the Jay property (land gifted pre-marriage and mobile home purchased pre-marriage) is nonmarital or contains nonmarital portions and the court failed to classify it | Mooar: court implicitly treated property as distributable to Greenleaf and considered mortgage/payments; property value increase was addressed in judgment | Court: vacated property-distribution portion; trial court abused discretion by denying Rule 52 motion and must classify Jay property (or portions) as marital/nonmarital and reassess distribution |
| Whether the spousal support award was justified without findings on ability to pay | Greenleaf: trial court failed to consider or explain his ability to pay; award leaves him effectively unable to meet obligations | Mooar: court considered several statutory factors (marriage length, health, homemaking, income histories) supporting award | Court: vacated spousal-support portion; trial court abused discretion by denying Rule 52 motion and must consider and explain how it evaluated Greenleaf’s ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Laqualia v. Laqualia, 30 A.3d 838 (Me. 2011) (three-step process for distinguishing marital vs nonmarital property and distributing assets)
- Miliano v. Miliano, 50 A.3d 534 (Me. 2012) (property acquired before marriage typically nonmarital; spouse may show marital components shifting burden)
- Douglas v. Douglas, 43 A.3d 965 (Me. 2012) (when Rule 52 findings motion is denied, appellate courts may not infer omitted findings; denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Finucan v. Williams, 73 A.3d 1056 (Me. 2013) (trial court must make sufficient findings to inform parties and permit effective appellate review)
- Ehret v. Ehret, 135 A.3d 101 (Me. 2016) (Rule 52 requires express factual findings based on record evidence sufficient to support the result)
- Jandreau v. LaChance, 116 A.3d 1273 (Me. 2015) (spousal support reviewed for abuse of discretion; court must consider statutory factors including ability to pay)