Violette v. Violette

• Decision Date: 30 July 2015
• Docket Number: Docket No. Ken–14–286.
• Citation: 120 A.3d 667,2015 ME 97
• Parties: Christine V. VIOLETTE v. Randy R. VIOLETTE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

120 A.3d 667

2015 ME 97

Christine V. VIOLETTE

v.Randy R. VIOLETTE.

Docket No. Ken–14–286.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: May 12, 2015.

Decided: July 30, 2015.

Elizabeth J. Scheffee, Esq. (orally), Givertz, Scheffee & Lavoie, PA, Portland, for appellant Christine V. Violette.

Kenneth P. Altshuler, Esq. (orally), Childs, Rundlett, Fifield & Altshuler, LLC, Portland, for appellee Randy R. Violette.

Panel: MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.

Opinion

MEAD, J.

[¶ 1] Christine V. Violette appeals from a judgment of divorce entered in the District Court (Waterville, Dow, J. ). Christine contends that the court (1) clearly erred in its calculation of Randy R. Violette's income; (2) abused its discretion in its spousal support award; (3) clearly erred in finding that two assets, a piece of real estate and a business, were nonmarital; and (4) violated her fundamental right to parent her children when it ordered the parties to discipline their children in a specific fashion upon the occurrence of particular events. We vacate the portion of the judgment that mandates specific disciplinary measures and affirm in all other respects.

I. CASE HISTORY

[¶ 2] Christine and Randy were married on October 2, 1993, in Lewiston. They have three children together: a seventeen-year-old son, a thirteen-year-old son, and a ten-year-old daughter. Christine filed a complaint for divorce on November 9, 2012. At the final hearing on December 12, 2013, the court heard evidence of the following facts relevant to this appeal.

[¶ 3] Separately or together, the parties own a total of six parcels of real estate. All but one are encumbered by various debts. Only one parcel, located in Sidney, is at issue on appeal. Prior to the parties' marriage, Randy purchased the parcel in Sidney and built a building there, which he rents to his own business, Power Equipment Plus. Subsequent to the parties' marriage, a storage building was added to the Sidney parcel. The parties did not dispute that the property currently has a value of $313,900, is encumbered by debts of $106,725 and $869, and has a net value of $206,306. Christine offered and the court accepted a table that states that on October 30, 2012, the Sidney property had two debts: “$130,000 as of [February 18, 1993]” and “$55,000 SBA mort” dated June 6, 1998. Randy testified that the debts on the property are for nonpayment of taxes and one or more loans. Christine did not testify or otherwise offer evidence explaining the notations in her table regarding the debts.

[¶ 4] Power Equipment Plus is a Subchapter S Corporation, incorporated before the marriage, and Randy owns 100 percent of the shares. During their marriage, Randy and Christine worked together at the business. Each drew salaries from the corporation. Randy testified that the current value of Power Equipment Plus is “no value,” and he introduced evidence that the business's debts outweigh its assets and that the company was taking a loss in recent years. Christine testified that, at an unspecified time (“when the market wasn't as good”), the couple began using their home equity line of credit to support the business, first testifying that the loan was used “strictly” for the business and then testifying that “half” of it was used for the business. Power Equipment Plus, in turn, made payments on the home equity loan. However, Christine did not testify to or offer evidence regarding the alleged business practices or intermingling of personal and business funds that would allow the court to make findings regarding specific monetary amounts involved.

Christine also testified that the business takes in more money than the books reflect, but she offered no specific amounts or methodology that would allow the court to impute additional income to the business.

[¶ 5] During the marriage, Randy borrowed over $200,000 from his parents. One loan—for $100,000—was used to pay off a debt that was incurred by Randy prior to the marriage as part of the Power Equipment Plus start-up process. The remainder of the loan proceeds was used to support the family's lifestyle.

[¶ 6] Neither party offered an expert witness on the complex financial issues at stake in the dissolution of their marriage.¹

[¶ 7] Randy testified and produced evidence that his income is approximately $50,000 per year based on his salary at Power Equipment Plus and some rental income he makes from the Sidney property and others. Christine testified that Randy makes more than $50,000 per year because he makes some unreported income through his business. She also asked the court to consider an earlier case management order in the divorce action that ordered Randy to pay expenses totaling more than $50,000 per year.

[¶ 8] When they were first married and the business was just getting started, Christine worked a separate full-time job and helped at Power Equipment Plus in the evenings. For years before their separation, however, the parties drew equal annual salaries of $29,824.60 from their jobs at the business and, in addition, they paid the majority of their household expenses through the business, including clothing, utilities, tuition for private school, car expenses, health insurance, and medical bills. Christine has Adult Stills Disease, which does not affect her ability to work, but does cause her to incur expenses of $200 per month for medication and $350 to $400 per month for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Christine has a bachelor's degree in marketing information systems and is currently enrolled in a master's program at Thomas College, which will take her about two years to complete, and during which time she probably will be unable to work except during summer breaks. She was not employed during the year preceding the final hearing on December 12, 2013.

[¶ 9] The court heard extensive testimony about the family's dynamics from the guardian ad litem appointed to the case. The parties have very different parenting styles, each with strengths and weaknesses. The guardian ad litem testified that, while Randy can be overly harsh and blunt with the children, Christine does not have “discipline standards where she can set a course of action and [have] the children follow it.” Randy and the eldest child are estranged, and the child expressed to the guardian ad litem a preference to never have visits with Randy. The transfers of the two younger children from Christine to Randy for visitation have been difficult, and on one occasion Christine called the Falmouth Police Department for assistance because she was unable to compel the children to get out of her car for a visit. The guardian ad litem testified that the parties would need a “tight,” detailed order.

[¶ 10] The court entered a divorce judgment on May 21, 2014, granting the parties a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable marital differences. The court ordered Randy to pay to Christine transitional spousal support in the amount of $300 per week for 156 weeks, based on its findings that the parties were married for nineteen years, one month, and seven days before the complaint was filed; Randy is forty-eight years old and Christine is forty-five years old; Christine “holds a bachelor's degree in the business field”; she “intends to complete a master's degree at Thomas College”; she will be required to obtain health insurance after the divorce; she and Randy lived beyond their means during their marriage and after their separation; and “Christine contributed to the family substantially as a parent and homemaker” but “has the ability to become self-supporting within three years by reducing her expenses, furthering her education, and looking hard for work.” The court also ordered Randy to pay to Christine child support in the amount of $275 per week for the three children. In its attached and incorporated child support worksheet, the court listed Randy's annual gross income as $50,000, and Christine's as $15,600. The court ordered that Christine could claim all three children as her dependents for tax purposes.

[¶ 11] In its division of property, the court found that the real estate in Sidney is Randy's nonmarital property, and set it aside to him. In a table attached to the judgment and incorporated therein, the property was listed as having a value of $313,900 and debts of $106,725 and $869, with a net value of $206,306. Further, the court found that Power Equipment Plus is Randy's nonmarital property and set it aside to him. In the table, Power Equipment Plus was recorded as a “business interest” with a value of “0.” The court set aside the marital home to Christine, subject to the property's $98,512 home equity loan.

[¶ 12] In its order of parental rights and responsibilities, the court found that, although separately the parties are “strong parents,” the parties “are unable to effectively share parental rights at this time” due to the “unusual degree of conflict and strife between [the parties].” The court declined to “enter a special ‘no-contact’ schedule for [the oldest child and Randy],” finding that it was not in the child's or his siblings' best interests “to allow him to simply opt out of the family.” The court ordered:

When any of the children are scheduled to be with a parent and they refuse to be with that parent, the other parent shall require the refusing child to stay in his or her bedroom, and they may not have access to the Internet, telephone, text messaging, television, or video games during such time. Neither party shall dramatize the imposition of this consequence of a child's choice.

The court granted Christine primary residence of all three children, ordered the parties to attend a high-conflict parenting course, and set out a detailed allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and a visitation schedule.

[¶ 13] Subsequently, Christine filed a motion for further findings of fact and conclusions of law, see M.R. Civ. P. 52(b), requesting further findings to support the court's spousal support award,...