Nordberg v. Nordberg
| Decision Date | 08 May 1995 |
| Parties | Margit Lassen NORDBERG v. Leif H. NORDBERG. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Christopher A. Johnson, McEachern & Thornhill, Kittery, for plaintiff.
Thomas G. VanHouten, Sanford, for defendant.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA and LIPEZ, JJ.
Leif H. Nordberg appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County, McKinley, A.R.J.) affirming the judgment of the District Court (Springvale, Crowley, J.) granting a divorce to Margit Lassen Nordberg on her complaint against Leif. Leif contends the trial court erred in its determination as to the distribution of certain property of the parties. Finding no error in the record, we affirm the judgment.
The record reveals the following pertinent facts: The parties were married on January 1, 1985. There are no children of the marriage. A divorce judgment was entered on May 28, 1993. At the time of the marriage Margit owned a residence in New Jersey that she had purchased in 1975 for $40,750, which she transferred to herself and Leif as joint tenants. She also owned a Vanguard TIAA 403(b) account valued at $33,000. During the course of the marriage, no contributions were made to this account; however, Margit did instruct Vanguard to transfer these funds from its domestic to its international market account. In 1986, the parties purchased property in Alfred as joint tenants for $178,000. Margit made a down payment of $5,000 for such property. In October 1988 the sum of $83,000, representing proceeds from the sale of the New Jersey property, was paid toward the purchase price of the Alfred property. In 1989, Margit received $105,000 from her TIAA account with Vanguard as a lump sum distribution of which $57,357.11 was used to retire the mortgage on the Alfred property.
The trial court found, inter alia, that the property in New Jersey was marital property; that the $5,000 down payment made by Margit and the additional $57,357.11 payment on the Alfred property was from her separate property; further, that the fair market value of the Alfred property was $250,000, of which amount Margit's contribution of non-marital property represented 34% of the acquisition cost. The court ordered that the Alfred property be set aside to Margit and that of the 66% marital interest in the property she be awarded 55% and Leif be awarded 45%. Margit was given a period of six months to pay to Leif $75,000, representing his 30% of the fair market value of the property. 1 In the event that Margit was unable to purchase the property, it would immediately be listed for sale and sold on the open market with 70% of the net proceeds to be distributed to Margit and the remaining 30% to Leif. From the judgment entered accordingly, Leif appeals.
When, as here, the appeal is from a judgment entered in the Superior Court, acting as an appellate court, we review directly the record before the trial court. Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351, 353 (Me.1994).
Leif first contends that the trial court erred in determining that the $57,357.11 used to retire the mortgage on the Alfred property was Margit's sole and separate property. He argues that pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. § 722-A(2) (1981) 2 the increase in value of the Vanguard TIAA 403(b) account during the course of the marriage was marital property. We disagree.
The trial court's determination of what property is marital and what is non-marital is reviewed for clear error and will not be disturbed if there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hedges v. Pitcher
...not cause the increase in value of the property attributable to reinvested income to be treated as marital property. See Nordberg v. Nordberg, 658 A.2d 217 (Me.1995). This provision also does not require proof that a spouse's active and substantial involvement in the asset's management, pre......
-
Warner v. Warner
..."[i]f the appreciation occurs because of increases in market value, the appreciation remains nonmarital property."); Nordberg v. Nordberg, 658 A.2d 217, 219 (Me.1995) (finding nonmarital funds at issue remained nonmarital despite increase in value of funds due to fluctuations in the market ......
-
Clum v. Graves
...[¶ 9] When a Superior Court acts in an appellate capacity, we directly review the record of the District Court. See Nordberg v. Nordberg, 658 A.2d 217, 219 (Me.1995). The District Court's characterization of property as marital or nonmarital is reviewed for clear error. See id.; see also Ha......
-
Boyer v. Boyer
...[¶ 6] When a Superior Court acts in an appellate capacity, we directly review the record of the District Court. See Nordberg v. Nordberg, 658 A.2d 217, 219 (Me.1995). M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) provides that a party may be relieved from a final judgment if the judgment is void.3 A challenged jud......