Richard L. Marston v. Armande C. Marston, 141 A.3d 1106

Richard and Armande divorced in 1999; the decree required Richard to pay $2,500/month spousal support, subject to review for a substantial change in Richard’s income, then stated as $108,000.
In 2008, by stipulation, the court modified the decree to change the termination conditions (support ends on Armande’s death, remarriage, or permanent nursing-home residency) but did not explicitly make fresh factual findings about income; Richard had retired in 2007 and reported pension income of $66,360 in 2008.
In 2014 Richard moved again to modify support, asserting a substantial decrease in income since the divorce/previous orders.
A 2014 case-management order (entered by a different judge) indicated the original $108,000 benchmark from 1999 remained operative for review.
At the 2015 hearing the court used the 1999 $108,000 figure as the benchmark, found Richard’s income was substantially lower than then, and reduced support to $1,250/month; Armande appealed.
The Supreme Judicial Court vacated and remanded, holding the correct benchmark for assessing a motion to modify is the most recent final order (the 2008 modification), not the original 1999 income figure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper benchmark for assessing a motion to modify spousal support	Richard argued the court could measure change against the 1999 income figure ($108,000)	Armande argued the benchmark must be the most recent final order (2008) with Richard’s lower retirement income	Court held the benchmark is the most recent final order (2008); using 1999 income was legal error
Burden of proof to modify support	Richard must prove a substantial change in circumstances since the most recent final order	Armande contended Richard failed to meet the proper, higher burden measured from 2008	Because court used wrong benchmark, its finding that Richard proved a substantial change is vacated and remanded
Effect of prior judge’s case-management order	Richard relied on the case-management order indicating $108,000 benchmark	Armande argued that order misapplied the controlling rule (most recent final order)	The panel concluded the case-management order reflected an error of law and cannot substitute for correct legal standard
Harmless-error analysis where multiple bases supported modification	Richard argued other factual findings (e.g., depletion of retirement assets) independently supported modification	Armande argued the erroneous income-benchmark finding tainted the outcome	Court found it not highly probable the error was harmless and remanded for findings using 2008 benchmark

Gomberg v. Gomberg, 125 A.3d 724 (Me. 2015) (trial court must look for a substantial change in financial circumstances since the most recent final order when considering modification)
Ellis v. Ellis, 962 A.2d 328 (Me. 2008) (party seeking modification bears burden to show substantial change; appellate standard of review explained)
Dunning v. Dunning, 495 A.2d 821 (Me. 1985) (harmless-error framework when a clearly erroneous factual finding may have affected outcome)
Remick v. Martin, 103 A.3d 552 (Me. 2014) (unsupported factual findings that form basis of decision are not harmless)