Moran v. Moran, Docket: Wal-21-309
| Docket Number | Docket: Wal-21-309 |
| Decision Date | 09 August 2022 |
| Citation | 279 A.3d 385,2022 ME 43 |
| Parties | Patrick R. MORAN v. Whitney D. MORAN |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Kelley E. Mellenthin, Esq. (orally), Lincolnville Center, for appellant Whitney D. Moran
Scott J. Lynch, Esq. (orally), Lynch & VanDyke, P.A., Lewiston, for appellee Patrick R. Moran
Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ.*
[¶1] Whitney D. Moran appeals from a divorce judgment entered by the District Court (Belfast, Walker, J. ) on Patrick R. Moran's complaint. Whitney contends that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in its classification of the parties' retirement accounts and its denial of her request for attorney fees.1 We vacate the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings.
[¶2] The record supports the following facts. Patrick and Whitney were married in August 2017, and they have one child who was born in January 2019. In June 2019, Patrick filed a complaint for divorce. Whitney answered and counterclaimed.
[¶3] Two years later, the court held a two-day trial. The parties testified about their decision in February 2019 to begin living apart. They both testified that Patrick had emotionally withdrawn from the marriage during Whitney's pregnancy and that, approximately two weeks after their child was born, Whitney went to California with the child to receive support from her family. Before Whitney and the child left, Patrick and Whitney signed a short statement entitled "Informal Marriage Agreement" in which they stated that they were neither legally separating nor terminating their marriage.
[¶4] The parties also testified about their decision in June 2019 to legally end their marriage. Whitney testified that, after several months "without answers," she filed a petition for legal separation on May 31, 2019, in California. A few days later, Whitney returned to Maine with the parties' child for a visit. During the visit, after learning that Patrick had been having an affair, Whitney had Patrick served with a copy of the petition. Patrick then filed for divorce in Maine.
[¶5] The parties also testified about their income and retirement accounts, and the court admitted numerous financial documents. Patrick testified that he has worked for Versant Power—formerly Emera Maine—since 2014. In 2020, he earned $103,176.64. Patrick further testified that he has three retirement accounts: (1) a Vanguard brokerage account, (2) a Vanguard Roth IRA, and (3) a Versant Power 401(k) account. Because the parties had a "short marriage," Patrick suggested that the court determine the marital portion of his retirement accounts using the values of the accounts on the "date of separation" rather than at the time of the hearing. He offered several exhibits to establish the balances of his retirement accounts on various "milestone" dates, including the date of the marriage, the "date of separation," the date of the judicial settlement conference, and the date of the divorce hearing. Some of the exhibits used a "date of separation" in February 2019, while other exhibits used a "date of separation" in June 2019. At the time of the trial, Patrick's retirement accounts had a combined value of $357,063.50.
[¶6] Whitney testified that she currently works as a special education teacher in California and that she had worked as a special education teacher when she lived in Maine. In 2020, she earned approximately $28,000. Whitney further testified that she has four retirement accounts: a MainePERS account, a CalSTRS account, a Vanguard brokerage account, and a Vanguard Roth IRA. Regarding her MainePERS account, Whitney testified that the account was valued at $4,739.25 at the time of the marriage and $10,689.76 as of April 2021. Regarding her CalSTRS account, Whitney testified that the account was valued at $3,018.66 as of January 2021. Two weeks before trial, Whitney submitted an updated financial statement in which she indicated that her Vanguard brokerage account and Vanguard Roth IRA had a combined value of $15,773.67 and that the accounts had both marital and nonmarital components. At trial, Whitney testified that her Vanguard accounts had a combined balance of $3,817.41 at the time of the marriage and that they had a current balance of $16,031.48. To support her testimony, Whitney offered account statements, which the court admitted. According to this evidence, Whitney's retirement accounts had a total value of $29,739.90.
[¶7] Whitney requested that Patrick pay $12,987.20 toward her attorney fees and submitted an affidavit showing that she had incurred that amount, excluding fees incurred for the two days of trial.2
[¶8] On August 4, 2021, the court entered a judgment of divorce and denied Whitney's request for attorney fees.3 Although the court did not expressly find that the parties had legally separated, the court relied on the "date of separation"4 to determine the marital and nonmarital components of Patrick's retirement accounts. For Patrick's 401(k) account, the court found that it was valued at $32,847.21 on the date of the marriage and $78,407.24 on the "date of separation." The court determined that the increase in value from the date of the marriage to the "date of separation" was marital property and divided it evenly between the parties. For Patrick's Vanguard accounts, the court found that they had a combined value of $88,570.86 on the date of the marriage and $137,845.00 on the "date of separation." The court further found that Patrick had made a "nonmarital gift" of $25,000 during the marriage that had contributed to the increase in the Vanguard accounts' combined value.5 After setting aside $113,570.86 to Patrick as his nonmarital property, the court found that the remaining $24,274.14 was marital property and divided it evenly between the parties.
[¶9] Regarding Whitney's retirement accounts, the court found that her MainePERS account was entirely marital and that her CalSTRS account was entirely nonmarital. The court awarded both accounts to Whitney. The court further awarded to Whitney her Vanguard brokerage account and Vanguard Roth IRA, which the court found were entirely marital property and were valued at $15,773.67 and $12,214.07, respectively.
[¶10] Whitney timely filed a motion for further findings of fact and conclusions of law with an incorporated motion to alter or amend the judgment. See M.R. Civ. P. 52(b), 59(e). She also renewed her request for attorney fees, seeking an award of $5,000. The court denied Whitney's motions, and she timely appealed.
[¶11] Whitney argues that the trial court erred in its classification of the parties' retirement accounts by relying on the parties' de facto separation to characterize portions of Patrick's accounts as nonmarital and by not setting aside the nonmarital portions of her accounts as required by statute. She further argues that the trial court erred by awarding her an account that does not exist. "A court's determination that a retirement benefit or account, or a part thereof, is marital or nonmarital property is reviewed for clear error." Bojarski v. Bojarski , 2012 ME 56, ¶ 15, 41 A.3d 544. "However, we review the application of the law to the facts de novo." Id. "Although we ordinarily assume that a trial court found all the facts necessary to support its judgment, when, as here, a motion for findings has been filed and denied, we cannot infer findings from the evidence in the record." Mooar v. Greenleaf , 2018 ME 23, ¶ 7, 179 A.3d 307 (quotation marks omitted). "We confine our review to the court's explicit findings and determine whether those findings are supported by the record." Sulikowski v. Sulikowski , 2019 ME 143, ¶ 11, 216 A.3d 893.
1. The delineation of Whitney's public employment retirement accounts as marital or nonmarital property must be calculated pursuant to the three-step process for division of property in a divorce matter.
[¶12] "We have long recognized a three-step process for distributing property in a divorce." Laqualia v. Laqualia , 2011 ME 114, ¶ 13, 30 A.3d 838 ; see 19-A M.R.S. § 953 (2021).6
Laqualia , 2011 ME 114, ¶ 13, 30 A.3d 838 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
[¶13] "The trial court has no discretion in the allocation of the nonmarital property; it must be transferred to the spouse to whom it belongs." Id. ¶ 15 (quotation marks omitted). When a party in a divorce action has a retirement account that accrued both before and during the marriage, the trial court should first determine the present value of the account. See Skibinski v. Skibinski , 2009 ME 13, ¶ 7, 964 A.2d 641. It should then determine the value of the nonmarital portion that is to be set aside and determine the value of the marital portion that is subject to division. See id.
[¶14] Title 19-A M.R.S. § 953(2) broadly defines "marital property" as "all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage." "Nonmarital property" includes property that falls into the statutorily enumerated exceptions to "marital property," see id. § 953(2)(A)-(E), and property acquired by either spouse before the marriage, see Miliano v. Miliano , 2012 ME 100, ¶ 16, 50 A.3d 534 ; Long v. Long , 1997 ME 171, ¶ 9, 697 A.2d 1317.
[¶15] Here, Whitney testified that her MainePERS account had a balance of $4,739.25 at the time of the marriage and a balance of $10,689.76 near the time of trial. Whitney further testified that her CalSTRS account had a balance of $3,018.66 as of January 2021. Although the court correctly determined the present value of Whitney's MainePERS account, the court erred by not setting aside to Whitney as her nonmarital property the $4,739.25 that was...
To continue reading
Request your trial