225 A.3d 410
Me.2020Background
- Sarah B. McLean and Ian R. Robertson are parents of a three‑year‑old; McLean sought determination of parental rights and child support.
- McLean owns P&P Services, Inc.; she testified the company pays for her car payment ($850/mo), fuel ($200/mo), health insurance (initially $220, later $440/mo), and cell phone ($100/mo) — totaling $1,590/month or $19,080/year in fringe benefits.
- On their child support affidavits Robertson reported $42,526 gross (court used $41,500); McLean reported $64,000 gross and listed $0 for fringe benefits (court used $66,000).
- The District Court awarded McLean primary physical residence, set Robertson’s continuing child support at $107.45/week, and ordered Robertson to pay $6,000 of McLean’s attorney fees.
- Robertson moved for further findings to address the discrepancy between McLean’s testimony/interrogatory (showing $19,080 in fringe benefits) and her affidavit; the court denied the motion without explaining why fringe benefits were excluded.
- On appeal the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the child support and fee determinations in part and remanded for further findings regarding McLean’s gross income and any resulting adjustments to support and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McLean) | Defendant's Argument (Robertson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McLean’s in‑kind/fringe benefits must be included in gross income | McLean relied on her child support affidavit listing income without fringe | Robertson argued the court must include $19,080/yr in fringe under 19‑A M.R.S. § 2001(5)(B) | Vacated and remanded: court failed to explain exclusion of fringe benefits; must consider the undisputed evidence and justify or amend gross income and support calculations |
| Whether court improperly imputed income to Robertson during 16‑day incarceration | McLean implicitly relied on Robertson’s stated annual income | Robertson argued incarceration precludes imputing income under § 2001(5)(D) | No error: court used Robertson’s reported annual income and did not impute income for the incarceration period; no evidence his short incarceration affected yearly income |
| Whether awarding $6,000 in attorney fees was an abuse of discretion | McLean obtained fees based on Robertson’s ability to pay and litigation conduct | Robertson argued fee award was improper given income issues and other factors | Vacated in part and remanded: fee award must be reconsidered after court clarifies McLean’s income and reexamines parties’ relative abilities to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Ehret v. Ehret, 135 A.3d 101 (Me. 2016) (trial court must make express factual findings when a timely Rule 52 motion requests them; absence of findings precludes appellate inference)
- Dumas v. Milotte, 130 A.3d 394 (Me. 2016) (vacating support order where court did not explain income calculations and denied motion for findings)
- Williams v. St. Pierre, 889 A.2d 1011 (Me. 2006) (cannot assume implicit findings when a post‑judgment motion for findings is denied)
- King v. King, 66 A.3d 593 (Me. 2013) (incarcerated party may be deemed available only for institutional employment; court may not impute income solely because of incarceration)
- Verite v. Verite, 151 A.3d 1 (Me. 2016) (in awarding attorney fees in parental rights cases, court must consider parties’ relative ability to pay)