288 A.3d 805
Me.2023Background
- Parties executed a premarital agreement (PMA) days before marrying in 2013; Aubuchon filed for divorce in 2020 attaching the PMA. The trial court found the PMA enforceable and that Blaisdell had contested it in bad faith.
- The couple jointly owned Blaisdell Financial Consulting LLC (BFC); Blaisdell separately sued Aubuchon in civil court alleging fraud, and that civil case was later consolidated with the divorce.
- The parties mediated on November 19, 2021 and reached a settlement largely mirroring the PMA that, among other things, set BFC aside to Blaisdell and included mutual releases and dismissal of the civil case.
- After mediation Blaisdell made public accusations about Aubuchon and threatened criminal complaints; his counsel withdrew and Blaisdell continued pro se.
- The District Court entered a final judgment adopting the mediation terms but added three provisions preserving claims for false/defamatory or bad‑faith post‑mediation conduct, imposing a non‑disparagement clause, and clarifying the dismissal/exceptions. The court also sealed a motion and awarded Aubuchon fees for litigating the entry of judgment.
- Blaisdell appealed, arguing denial of a trial and that the court impermissibly altered the mediated agreement; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed and found the appeal frivolous/contumacious, awarding treble costs and attorney fees to Aubuchon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aubuchon) | Defendant's Argument (Blaisdell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry of final judgment without a full trial violated due process | Court afforded hearing and written opportunity; Blaisdell did not request a trial | Court violated due process by issuing judgment without trial | No due process violation; hearing and written submissions sufficed and Blaisdell never requested trial |
| Whether the court impermissibly altered the mediated settlement by adding three provisions | Additions merely clarify limits of the release and address post‑mediation misconduct; within court's equitable authority | Additions materially changed the settlement and exceeded court authority | Court acted within discretion; added provisions confirm limited scope and preserve post‑mediation claims, not substantive alteration |
| Whether appeal is frivolous and warrants sanctions under M.R. App. P. 13(f) | Appeal lacks merit, misstates facts, and is inadequately briefed; fees warranted | Blaisdell advances meritless, inadequately briefed and partly waived claims | Appeal held frivolous and contumacious; treble costs and attorney fees awarded; procedure set for fee request |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Krieckhaus, 158 A.3d 951 (Me. 2017) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Cloutier v. Cloutier, 814 A.2d 979 (Me. 2003) (family matters invoke equitable court authority)
- Webb v. Webb, 878 A.2d 522 (Me. 2005) (deferential review of additional language in divorce judgments)
- Lincoln v. Burbank, 147 A.3d 1165 (Me. 2016) (sanctions authorized for frivolous appeals)
- Whittet v. Whittet, 167 A.3d 1258 (Me. 2017) (standard for frivolousness requires culpable carelessness)
- Fox v. Fox, 221 A.3d 126 (Me. 2019) (unrepresented parties remain subject to appellate rules and sanctions)
- Mehlhorn v. Derby, 905 A.2d 290 (Me. 2006) (failure to develop argument waives challenge)
- Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor, 165 A.3d 357 (Me. 2017) (issues must be presented to trial court to preserve them for appeal)