Nicky Pyle v. Robert Pyle
2017 ME 101
Me.2017Background
- Nicky and Robert Pyle divorced; they have two children (ages 7 and 11). Nicky worked as a CT scan technician; Robert worked as a scrub technician and ran a landscaping business.
- Interim order placed children primarily with Nicky and set interim support amounts. Mediation failed; trial occurred June 29, 2016.
- Trial court found Nicky was the primary caretaker (handled doctors, counseling, most cooking, school involvement) and that Robert’s work schedule limited his availability. Court found Robert less credible.
- Trial court awarded primary residence to Nicky and adopted an existing contact schedule.
- Court calculated child support of $475.36/week, which included $61.36/week ($30.68/child/week) for children’s health insurance. Court adjusted Robert’s landscaping income upward based on business bank deposits rather than his tax return.
- On appeal, Robert challenged the custody award and two aspects of the child support calculation (business income and the health insurance amount).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nicky) | Defendant's Argument (Pyle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary residence of children | Nicky asserted she had been primary caretaker and that continuity/stability favored her | Robert argued the court erred in finding Nicky primarily responsible for basic needs and abused discretion in awarding primary residence | Court affirmed: factual findings supported (Nicky primary caretaker, Robert’s work schedule, credibility findings) and award did not abuse discretion |
| Child support calculation — business income & health insurance | Nicky proposed specific income and health-insurance amounts; court relied on bank deposits to adjust Robert’s business gross receipts and included health-insurance cost from Nicky’s proposed order | Robert argued court miscalculated his business income and included unsupported health-insurance costs | Court upheld income determination based on bank deposits (not clear error) but vacated the health-insurance component because the $30.68/child/week figure lacked evidentiary support and remanded to determine correct amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Gerakaris, 119 A.3d 739 (Me. 2015) (standard for reviewing factual findings)
- Smith v. Padolko, 955 A.2d 740 (Me. 2008) (deference to trial court credibility assessments in custody/best interest determinations)
- Foley v. Ziegler, 931 A.2d 498 (Me. 2007) (standard of review for child support awards)