Patricia E. Bonner v. Jeff D. Emerson
105 A.3d 1023
| Me. | 2014Background
- Bonner and Emerson divorced after a settlement placed on the record on Nov. 30, 2012; the court entered a March 29, 2013 "partial final" divorce judgment resolving non-disputed issues and reserving one disputed issue.
- Paragraph 10 of the March 29 judgment divided specified accounts: some to be equally divided, others divided by specified proportions; it stated any post-judgment market changes in Raymond James accounts would be divided "in the same proportion as specified herein."
- Paragraph 12(b) governed certain stock-option proceeds: plaintiff’s share = one-half of defendant’s liquidation value, "net any Federal and State tax liability created by said receipt," and the parties ‘‘shall equally share in the payment of any Federal or State tax when incurred.’'
- After entry, Bonner moved under M.R. Civ. P. 120 to enforce equal division of a Raymond James account increase; Emerson moved that increases be split proportionally. Bonner later sought enforcement of paragraph 12(b) on taxes for stock-option transactions.
- The district court, invoking Rule 60(b) principles sua sponte, amended the judgment to: (1) change paragraph 12(b) to create different formulas for 2013 and 2014+, and (2) require equal division of the Raymond James account increase—reducing Bonner’s payout by about $90,000. Both parties appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could amend the divorce judgment without a Rule 60(b) motion | Bonner sought enforcement of the judgment language (Rule 120); did not request Rule 60(b) relief | Emerson argued court lacked authority to amend absent a Rule 60(b) motion | Court held a party must invoke Rule 60(b) to obtain relief under it; court lacked authority to amend absent such a motion |
| Interpretation of ¶10 (division of Raymond James account increase) | Bonner: paragraph 10 requires equal division of any pre-division increase | Emerson: increases must be divided in proportion to the underlying award (31%/69%) | Court concluded ¶10 unambiguous: increase divided in same 31/69 proportion; district court erred by ordering equal split; amended judgment vacated as to ¶10 |
| Interpretation of ¶12(b) (tax allocation on stock options) | Bonner: ¶12(b) should not reduce her proceeds by taxes already paid on jointly filed 2012 return; enforcement of plain language | Emerson: ¶12(b) reduces Bonner’s share by both 2012 taxes and taxes at sale (so she bears double reduction) | Court held ¶12(b) unambiguous: Bonner already bore her half of 2012 tax; she owes one-half of taxes incurred at sale, but cannot be charged twice; district court erred in amending ¶12(b) |
| Whether the district court’s modifications were permissible clarification vs. impermissible modification | Bonner: sought clarification/enforcement only | Emerson: challenged district court’s substantive changes as beyond clarification | Court reiterated that a court may construe an ambiguous judgment but may not materially change property divisions; here no ambiguity existed, so amendments were improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wardwell v. Wardwell, 458 A.2d 750 (Me. 1983) (courts lack jurisdiction to modify marital property division absent statutory authority or proper Rule 60(b) relief)
- Merrill v. Merrill, 449 A.2d 1120 (Me. 1982) (limitations on modifying property divisions in divorce judgments)
- Greenwood v. Greenwood, 746 A.2d 358 (Me. 2000) (court may construe ambiguous judgment but cannot materially change property division under guise of clarification)
- Ramsdell v. Worden, 17 A.3d 1224 (Me. 2011) (standard for determining whether a judgment provision is reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations)
- Burnell v. Burnell, 40 A.3d 390 (Me. 2012) (unambiguous judgment language must be enforced according to plain meaning)
- Jackson v. MacLeod, 100 A.3d 484 (Me. 2014) (appellate review of a trial court’s determination of its authority is de novo)