Sears v. Sears
| Docket Number | Ken-22-282 |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 ME 45 |
| Parties | TORREY B. SEARS v. BOBBY J. SEARS |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Submitted On Briefs: February 22, 2023
Joe Lewis, Esq., Port City Legal, Portland, for appellant Torrey B. Sears
Thomas J. Nale Jr., Esq., Nale and Nale Law Offices, LLC Waterville, for appellee Bobby J. Sears
Panel MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ.
[¶1] Torrey B. Sears appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Waterville, Rushlau, J.) ordering his divorce from Bobby J. Sears, awarding Bobby[1] spousal support, distributing the parties' property and debt, and awarding Bobby attorney fees. Torrey primarily argues that the court erred or abused its discretion in its financial rulings because it failed to conduct sufficient fact finding with respect to Torrey's income. We vacate the court's award of spousal support distribution of the parties' property and debt, and award of attorney fees but affirm the judgment in all other respects.
[¶2] "The following facts, which are supported by the record, are drawn from the divorce judgment." Sullivan v. George, 2018 ME 115, ¶ 2, 191 A.3d 1168. Torrey and Bobby were married on August 16, 2000. In late 2018, Torrey told Bobby that he wanted a divorce, and they have been living separately ever since.
[¶3] During the marriage, Bobby primarily served as a homemaker, with responsibility for all aspects of the family household, while Torrey engaged in long-term, highly paid work. Since the parties separated, Bobby has worked in offices. She is currently a patient services representative at a doctor's office, and her projected annual income is $31,200. There is an "enormous difference" in both the past earnings and earning potential between Torrey and Bobby.
[¶4] Torrey graduated from college with a degree in engineering. In 2001, he began working in the power industry and quickly progressed to a salaried management position. Although he was well paid in his management role, he decided he would earn more working as a contractor instead of as an employee. As such, Torrey has primarily been working as a contractor or subcontractor through his LLC. His annual income appears to have ranged from $123,335 to $319,813 in the years 2007 to 2018.
[¶5] In early 2019, Torrey suffered a cardiac event and was hospitalized. He now has a cardiac device implanted in his body. This device is sensitive to electromagnetic forces, so he is precluded from working inside power plants. Torrey claims that his annual compensation has declined significantly because of this limitation.
[¶6] Throughout the marriage, Torrey controlled most aspects of the parties' finances. He also took responsibility for paying their taxes. In 2015, he stopped using a tax preparation service and having Bobby write checks for their estimated income taxes. Thus, from 2015-2018, which were some of Torrey's highest-earning years, the parties did not file any tax returns. As a result, they have a tax debt potentially amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The exact amount that will need to be paid is unclear.
[¶7] Torrey and Bobby also have significant debt in other respects, including, among other things, credit card debt and various loans. It is not clear how they accumulated so much debt when Torrey was earning a significant amount of money on which he has not been paying taxes. What is clear, however, as the court found, is that
[¶8] Torrey and Bobby do not appear to jointly own any significant assets. They own several vehicles. Torrey is a cotenant with relatives on four parcels of real estate, one of which was the marital home, but the parties agree that his interests in all parcels are nonmarital property. Bobby has been living in the marital home during the pendency of this case. She knows that she will have to move after the divorce and estimates that a suitable one or two-bedroom apartment will cost her $1,100 per month. Bobby will have a significant gap between her income and expenses.
[¶9] Torrey is currently sharing a residence with a partner in North Carolina. His income will vary depending on his success in obtaining engineering projects. He has shown that he can be profitably employed in his field notwithstanding his health issues. Torrey can pay substantial spousal support to Bobby, although, as the court found, "not in the amount requested by Bobby."
[¶10] In May 2019, Torrey filed a complaint for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. A final hearing was held in April 2021. The court heard testimony from Torrey and Bobby and admitted numerous exhibits in evidence by agreement of the parties. By written judgment, which was entered on March 4, 2022, the court granted Torrey's complaint for divorce.
[¶11] The court ordered Torrey to pay Bobby general spousal support of $2,000 per month for 114 months and to maintain a life insurance policy for Bobby's benefit for $250,000 during this period.[2] The court based its award on its findings that (1) the parties were married for nearly nineteen years; (2) Torrey has significantly higher earning potential; (3) Bobby had the important but unpaid role of homemaker while Torrey had consistent and highly paid work during the marriage; (4) Bobby has no pension, retirement, personal property, or real property that could support her; and (5) Torrey has debt but also real property assets and substantial earning potential for years to come.
[¶12] Critically, the court did not make an express finding, e.g., either a specific amount or even a range, identifying Torrey's current or projected income.
[¶13] The court also classified and distributed the parties' real and personal property, tangible and intangible, and debt. The court ordered that Torrey be solely responsible for their tax liability for the years 2015-2020. Finally, the court ordered Torrey to pay $6,000 toward Bobby's attorney fees.
[¶14] Torrey timely filed a motion for amended or additional findings pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52(b) and a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 59(e). He requested that the court "find additional facts and conclusions of law relating to its order regarding spousal support and marital property division and to alter or amend its spousal support award and property division order as appropriate," proposed fifteen findings, and requested four amendments to the judgment. The court denied the motions in August 2022, and Torrey timely appealed. 14 M.R.S. § 1901(1) (2023); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(2).
[¶15] Torrey challenges the court's financial determinations. The crux of his argument is that the court erred or abused its discretion in its determinations because it failed to make a factual finding regarding his current income or income potential, a finding foundational to any financial award. In a nutshell, although the rulings of the court appear reasonable on this record, because the court failed to make a finding regarding Torrey's income, we are unable to meaningfully review most of the court's financial rulings and remand for the court to make a finding regarding Torrey's income and to then re-examine its rulings. Each financial determination will be discussed in turn.
[¶16] We review findings upon which a spousal support award is based for clear error and a divorce court's decision regarding spousal support for an abuse of discretion. Viola v. Viola, 2015 ME 6, ¶ 7, 109 A.3d 634. Ordinarily, we "assume that a trial court found all of the facts necessary to support its judgment." Ehret v. Ehret, 2016 ME 43, ¶ 9, 135 A.3d 101. When, however, "a motion for findings has been timely filed and denied, we cannot infer findings from the evidence in the record." Id. (alteration and quotation marks omitted). "[I]f the judgment does not include specific findings that are sufficient to support the result, appellate review is impossible . . . ." Id.
[¶17] Any order granting spousal support must state (1) the type or types of support awarded, (2) the method of payment and any term limitations, (3) whether the support is subject to future modification, and (4) the factors relied upon by the court in arriving at its decision if the proceeding was contested. 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(1) (2023). These factors are set forth in 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(5). "In determining an award of spousal support, the trial court must consider all of the statutory factors, but may rely on some factors to the exclusion of others." Jandreau v. LaChance, 2015 ME 66, ¶ 16, 116 A.3d 1273.
[¶18] Because the court denied Torrey's motion for findings regarding his income, we cannot assume that the court implicitly found facts necessary to support its determination. Here, the court made the following findings relevant to the spousal support determination: the findings described above, see supra ¶ 11; that Torrey annually earned between $123,335 and $319,813 from 2007 to 2018; that Torrey's future income "will vary depending on his success" in finding engineering projects; and that Torrey "has shown that he can be profitably employed in his field, notwithstanding his health issues."
[¶19] The court did not, however, make an express finding regarding Torrey's current or projected income for purposes of the spousal support award.[3] Although the general findings it did make about Torrey's financial future are useful, we are unable to determine how the court arrived at the figure of $2,000 per month. See Dube v. Dube, 2016 ME 15, ¶ 12 131 A.3d 381. A court need not assign a specific dollar figure to a party's current or projected income in making a...
To continue reading
Request your trial