Deborah H. Neudek v. Arthur O. Neudek, 2011 ME 66

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reviewed the dismissal of Arthur O. Neudek's motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities. The court held that Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 120(b) required a hearing on the motion to modify because the specified exceptions did not apply, and it vacated and remanded the judgment. The court also noted that dispositive motion practice is rarely appropriate in domestic-relations cases involving factual disputes.

Holdings

1. Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 120(b) requires the court to hold a hearing on a motion for post-judgment relief, including a motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities, unless one of the rule's specified exceptions applies. Because neither exception applied, the District Court erred by dismissing the motion without a hearing.
2. Arthur asserted sufficient facts in his motion and affidavit to survive dismissal because, on a motion to dismiss, the asserted facts must be taken as true.
3. A motion to modify a parental rights and responsibilities order generally requires the moving party to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances since the most recent decree and that modification serves the child's best interests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court was required to conduct a hearing on Arthur's motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities.
2. Whether Arthur's motion and supporting affidavit alleged sufficient facts concerning a substantial change in circumstances to survive dismissal.
3. Whether dispositive motion practice was appropriate to resolve factual disputes concerning modification of parental rights and responsibilities.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded