Summary
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed a modification of spousal and child support following a divorce. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on the short duration of the marriage, a factor known at the time of divorce, to substantially reevaluate and terminate the parties' agreed general spousal support arrangement. The judgment was vacated and remanded for reconsideration based on the substantial change in circumstances standard.
Holdings
- A court abuses its discretion when it relies on circumstances that existed at the time of the divorce, such as the short duration of the marriage, to justify modifying a spousal-support award; modification must be based on a substantial post-divorce change in circumstances affecting the payor's ability to pay and the payee's need.
- The District Court abused its discretion by replacing the parties' general-support award with a small, nonmodifiable transitional-support award terminating after seven months without sufficient justification tied to the substantial changes in earning potential and assets.
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court abused its discretion by relying on the short duration of the marriage, a circumstance existing at the time of the divorce, when modifying the spousal-support award.
- Whether the District Court improperly reevaluated the basis of the original general-support award rather than limiting its inquiry to a substantial post-divorce change in circumstances.
- What relief was appropriate on remand if a substantial change in circumstances warranted some reduction in spousal support.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (8)
- Spencer v. Spencer, 1998 ME 252, ¶ 5, 720 A.2d 1159, 1161(followed)
- In re Jamara R., 2005 ME 45, ¶ 17, 870 A.2d 112, 117(followed)
- State v. Weinschenk, 2005 ME 28, ¶ 9, 868 A.2d 200, 205(followed)
- Osier v. Osier, 410 A.2d 1027, 1029-31 (Me. 1980)(followed)
- State v. Svay, 2003 ME 93, ¶ 11, 828 A.2d 790, 794(followed)
- Ketchum v. Ketchum, 1998 ME 62, ¶ 3, 707 A.2d 803, 804(followed)
- Haag v. Haag, 609 A.2d 1164, 1165 (Me. 1992)(followed)
- Spencer v. Spencer, 1998 ME 252, ¶ 11, 720 A.2d 1159, 1162(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…