Neri v. Heilig, 166 A.3d 1020

Kimberly Heilig and Ernest Neri married in 2004; each had separate retirement accounts and later lived in Maine after selling Honduran property and business.
In 2014, after marital breakdown, Neri purchased a multi-unit property in Thomaston in his name using funds from his Connecticut deferred compensation retirement account and a bank loan; he paid closing and loan costs from those nonmarital retirement funds.
Heilig did not contribute financially to the purchase, construction, or maintenance of the Thomaston property.
Heilig (age 67) earns about $13,000 from mediation and has deferred Social Security she could collect ($17,800 imputed); Neri (age 72) has $74,000 annual income from retirement and Social Security and is unemployable due to health.
The District Court (Mathews, J.) granted a divorce, classified the Thomaston property as Neri’s nonmarital property, ordered Neri to pay Heilig $1,000/month spousal support for 36 months (modifiable), required Heilig to pay $33,000 to equalize property division, and ordered Neri to pay $2,000 toward Heilig’s attorney fees; Heilig appealed.

Issue	Heilig's Argument	Neri's Argument	Held
Classification of Thomaston property as nonmarital	Property bought during marriage should be marital; court erred	Purchased and paid for with Neri’s nonmarital retirement funds; presumption overcome	Affirmed — clear error standard; evidence showed nonmarital funds purchased and supported property so classification stands
Spousal support amount & duration	Award too short and court failed to consider potential rental income from Thomaston	Court considered statutory factors, Heilig can increase income; rental income speculative	Affirmed — court reasonably applied 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A factors; refusal to speculate on future rental income was proper
Consideration of Heilig’s income potential	Court undervalued her need and future employment possibilities	Court acknowledged potential and imputed Social Security; did not base award on speculation	Affirmed — court may rely on selected factors and avoid speculative future events
Attorney fees award ($2,000)	Requested $4,000; $2,000 insufficient given costs	Court found Neri had superior ability to pay but $2,000 fair under totality of circumstances	Affirmed — trial court’s award was within discretion and adequately explained

Blanchard v. Blanchard, 148 A.3d 277 (Me. 2016) (standard for reviewing factual findings)
Spooner v. Spooner, 850 A.2d 354 (Me. 2004) (property classification is factual review)
Noyes v. Noyes, 617 A.2d 1036 (Me. 1992) (nonmarital funds can overcome marital presumption despite mortgage payments)
Coppola v. Coppola, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007) (treatment of nonmarital funds in real estate acquisition)
Jandreau v. LaChance, 116 A.3d 1273 (Me. 2015) (court may rely on some statutory factors to exclusion of others for spousal support)
Ryan v. Ryan, 697 A.2d 60 (Me. 1997) (court should avoid basing awards on speculative future economic circumstances)
Urquhart v. Urquhart, 854 A.2d 193 (Me. 2004) (attorney fee awards based on relative ability to pay and fairness)
Hebert v. Hebert, 475 A.2d 422 (Me. 1984) (requirement that trial court concisely explain fee award reasoning)

Judgment affirmed.