Selcuk Karamanoglu v. Catherine (Karamanoglu) Gourlaouen
140 A.3d 1249
| Me. | 2016Background
- Parties married in France (2006); one child born 2008. A 2014 protection order found Karamanoglu abused Gourlaouen and the child, initially restricting contact to supervised visits.
- The District Court appointed a referee to resolve custody/parenting and financial/property disputes; referee held hearings and issued reports later adopted by the court.
- Referee found Karamanoglu had rehabilitated sufficiently (therapist and guardian ad litem opinions) and recommended shared parental rights, shared primary residence, co-parenting counseling, continued child therapy, and mediation before further litigation.
- Parties own property in Primelin (France), Yarmouth (Maine), and Freeport; a French marriage contract with a separation-of-assets regime governs property division; Karamanoglu paid $815,144 for the Primelin property (now worth ~$500,000).
- Referee applied French law principles (capital contributions vs. ordinary marital expense contributions; profit subsistant) to allocate shares of Yarmouth and Primelin; judgment set Yarmouth shares (~$3.1M to Karamanoglu, ~$1.4M to Gourlaouen), awarded Primelin to Gourlaouen with a partial credit to Karamanoglu, ordered an equalization payment and spousal support.
- Both parties appealed/refused aspects: Gourlaouen challenged parenting provisions (conditions, counseling, third‑party decision-making, mandatory pre‑filing mediation) and property allocations; Karamanoglu cross‑appealed claiming insufficient credit for Primelin purchase payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gourlaouen) | Defendant's Argument (Karamanoglu) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court must impose safety‑related conditions under 19‑A M.R.S. §1653(6) after domestic abuse | Referee erred by not imposing statutory conditions (e.g., supervised contact, restrictions) | Referee found rehabilitation and no current risk; no conditions needed | Section 1653(6)(B) is permissive; court may decline conditions if no present safety need — no abuse of discretion here |
| Whether court could order victim to attend joint co‑parenting counseling with abusive parent | Object that counseling order improperly forces joint sessions | Referee sought counseling to improve co‑parenting; joint sessions discretionary | 19‑A M.R.S. §1653(6)(E) forbids ordering a victim to attend counseling with abusive parent; requirement for joint sessions vacated |
| Whether judgment impermissibly delegated/limited parents’ decision‑making over child medical and mental health care | Challenge that delegating approval to third parties infringes fundamental parental liberty | Referee relied on therapists and child’s best interest; argued need for stability | Orders requiring third‑party approval and mandating specific treatment impermissibly intrude on parents’ constitutional liberty to direct child’s care — vacated |
| Whether mandatory pre‑filing mediation before pursuing court relief is permissible | Mandatory pre‑filing mediation is acceptable to encourage settlement | Referee imposed absolute pre‑filing mediation requirement without exceptions | Absolute pre‑filing mediation denies timely access to courts and conflicts with statutory mediation/waiver framework — vacated |
| Proper application of French law to Primelin property and amount due to Karamanoglu | Primelin clause unenforceable; under French regime spouse who advanced purchase price should recover full capital contribution | Court credited only half of purchase price; Karamanoglu seeks full credit for capital payment | Referee misapplied French law by crediting only half; portion of property division must be vacated and remanded for correct application |
| Division of Yarmouth property under French law | Gourlaouen contends equity should be split equally | Referee apportioned based on separate capital contributions, equalized ordinary payments, and profit subsistant appreciation | Referee’s application of French principles to Yarmouth was correct; no error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Wechsler v. Simpson, 131 A.3d 909 (Me. 2016) (deference to referee findings and abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- Warren v. Warren, 866 A.2d 97 (Me. 2005) (de novo review of law‑fact application)
- Pearson v. Wendell, 125 A.3d 1149 (Me. 2015) (deference to referee credibility findings)
- Pitts v. Moore, 90 A.3d 1169 (Me. 2014) (parents’ fundamental liberty interest; strict scrutiny for state intrusion)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights principles referenced for liberty interest)
- Hickson v. Vescom Corp., 87 A.3d 704 (Me. 2014) (statutory interpretation—construe whole scheme)
- Sunshine v. Brett, 106 A.3d 1123 (Me. 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Ventrice v. Ventrice, 26 N.E.3d 1128 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015) (vacating absolute pre‑filing mediation requirement)