Timothy W. Harper v. Sheryl E. Harper, 169 A.3d 385

Timothy and Sheryl Harper married in 1978 and accumulated significant marital assets, including two important businesses: Northeastern Seafood, Inc. (NES) and The Dictator, Inc. (Dictator).
Sheryl founded NES in 1986; Timothy took over management between 1997–2005 and implemented changes (separate bookkeeping, removing credit-card processing, restricting buyers) that reduced NES profits and concealed cash receipts.
Timothy is sole shareholder of Dictator, a profitable company owning a scallop boat and permits (value ~ $4.5M); he used Dictator accounts for personal purchases and large bonuses.
The parties separated in July 2012; interim orders required Timothy to operate NES and Dictator during the divorce; the case later transferred to the Business and Consumer Docket and proceeded in two phases.
The court found Timothy committed economic misconduct that deprived the marital estate of about $800,000, imputed that amount to him under 19-A M.R.S. § 953(1), and ordered him to reimburse Sheryl $50,000 in attorney fees for prolonging litigation and misusing marital funds.
Timothy moved to reconsider; the trial court granted partial relief and denied part. He appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Timothy)	Defendant's Argument (Sheryl)	Held
Whether Timothy committed economic misconduct reducing the marital estate by ~$800,000	No; Sheryl must trace misappropriated funds to third parties and prove violation of a court order	Timothy’s unilateral accounting, cash skimming, increased debt, and personal use of corporate funds show misconduct and estate diminution	Affirmed: competent record evidence supports finding of economic misconduct and $800,000 imputation
Whether Sheryl needed to trace funds to third parties to prove misconduct	Tracing to third parties required to establish misuse	Not required when independent transaction records demonstrate inappropriate diminution of marital assets	Rejected: tracing not required; ample transactional evidence sufficed
Whether conduct must violate a court order to be economic misconduct	Timothy: misconduct must involve violation of an order	Sheryl: misconduct can occur without order violation if it improperly reduces marital assets	Rejected: economic misconduct can occur absent order violation; court may find misconduct based on conduct and records
Whether the court abused discretion awarding attorney fees and directing a referee post-judgment	Argues award and referee appointment were improper after judgment	Court: fees appropriate for conduct that prolonged litigation; Rule 53 allows referee oversight	Affirmed: fee award and instruction to referee were within court’s discretion

Catlett v. Catlett, 970 A.2d 287 (Me. 2009) (standard and evidence for finding economic misconduct)
Efstathiou v. Aspinquid, Inc., 956 A.2d 110 (Me. 2008) (review standard: uphold findings supported by competent evidence)
Murray v. Murray, 529 A.2d 1366 (Me. 1987) (appellate assumption of necessary factual findings when Rule 52(b) findings not requested)
Quin v. Quinn, 696 A.2d 432 (Me. 1997) (economic misconduct findings can be upheld absent court-order violation)
Estate of Ricci, 827 A.2d 817 (Me. 2003) (factors for awarding attorney fees in family law matters)
Huber v. Williams, 869 A.2d 737 (Me. 2005) (trial court may credit or disbelieve witness testimony)