Ronald R. Bertin v. Susan L. Bertin
2013 ME 70
| Me. | 2013Background
- Susan L. Bertin and Ronald R. Bertin were married in 1988 and divorced in 2011; the divorce judgment awarded Susan general spousal support of $1,200 per month for 15 years.
- The 2011 judgment stated that spousal support would terminate after either 180 consecutive payments, Susan cohabiting with another adult as if married for more than six months, Susan remarriage, or death of either party.
- Ronald moved in November 2012 to terminate spousal support on the ground that Susan’s boyfriend lived with her in a manner tantamount to marriage for over a year.
- A hearing was scheduled for December 12, 2012; Susan appeared with counsel but did not file a written response to Ronald’s motion.
- The district court entered a default judgment at the December 12 hearing, terminating spousal support effective June 1, 2012, based on Susan’s failure to file an objection under Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 7(c).
- Susan appealed, arguing Rule 105(a) requires consideration of spousal support issues even if there is no written response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment was proper under 105(a) given Susan’s appearance | Bertin: Rule 105(a) required considering spousal support despite no written answer. | Bertin: Rules 7(c) govern objections; appearance after service is insufficient to require 105(a) analysis. | Judgment vacated; remanded for proceedings consistent with Rule 105(a). |
| Whether the court should have heard spousal support issues under family division rules | Bertin: 105(a) allows hearing on spousal support without a response. | Bertin: The court followed general Rule 7 procedure, not family-specific Rule 105. | Remand to apply Rule 105(a) and permit consideration of spousal support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheepscot Land Corp. v. Gregory, 383 A.2d 16 (Me. 1978) (abuse of discretion standard for default judgments)
- Town of Poland v. T&M Mortg. Solutions, Inc., 987 A.2d 524 (Me. 2010) (rules interpretation and de novo review of procedural language)
- Wooldridge v. Wooldridge, 940 A.2d 1082 (Me. 2008) (costs discretion in family matters; procedural responses)