Marie J. (Marchiori) Eremita v. Cristiano A. Marchiori , 2016 Me. LEXIS 179 ( 2016 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2016 ME 160 Docket: Pen-15-573
Submitted
On Briefs: September 29, 2016
Decided: October 25, 2016
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
MARIE J. (MARCHIORI) EREMITA
v.
CRISTIANO A. MARCHIORI
GORMAN, J.
[¶1] Marie J. (Marchiori) Eremita and Cristiano A. Marchiori were
married in 1990; they have no minor children. Eremita instituted divorce
proceedings in the District Court (Bangor) against Marchiori in 2012 on the
ground of irreconcilable differences. See 19-A M.R.S. § 902(1)(H) (2015). By
judgment dated August 14, 2015, the court (Jordan, J.) divided the parties’
assets and debts, awarded Eremita spousal support, denied her request for
retroactive interim support, and denied her request for attorney fees. Eremita
filed a single motion purporting to request further findings of fact and
conclusions of law, a new trial, and alteration or amendment of the judgment.
See M.R. Civ. P. 52(b), 59(a), (e). She now appeals from the court’s denial of
her motion. See 14 M.R.S. § 1901 (2015); M.R. App. P. 2(b)(3).
2
[¶2] Among Eremita’s contentions is her argument that the court erred
by denying the portion of her motion that requested further findings of fact
and conclusions of law. We review the court’s decision for an abuse of
discretion. Dalton v. Dalton, 2014 ME 108, ¶ 21, 99 A.3d 723.
[¶3] Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52(b), a party may seek additional findings
of fact and conclusions of law by filing a motion no later than fourteen days
after the entry of judgment. That motion “must include the proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law requested.” M.R. Civ. P. 52(b); see M.R. Civ. P.
52(b) Advisory Note to 2015 amend. (“Because it is important for the court to
be apprised of the issues the moving party wishes to have addressed, the rule
now requires that . . . it is the litigant’s responsibility to include with the
motion suggested findings that are both specific and supported by the
record.”). Eremita’s motion did not include any proposed findings and
therefore did not comply with the requirements of Rule 52(b). With no
proper motion for further findings and conclusions before it, the court did not
err by denying Eremita’s request for relief.
[¶4] Eremita’s remaining contentions—regarding the court’s denial of
her request for a new trial and for amendment of the judgment, division of
marital and nonmarital property, calculation of spousal support, and denial of
3
attorney fees—are not persuasive and we do not address them further. See
19-A M.R.S. §§ 105(1), 951-A, 953 (2015); M.R. Civ. P. 59(a), (e); Viola v. Viola,
2015 ME 6, ¶¶ 7, 9, 11, 109 A.3d 634; Madore v. Me. Land Use Regulation
Comm’n, 1998 ME 178, ¶ 15, 715 A.2d 157; Larochelle v. Cyr, 1998 ME 52, ¶ 8,
707 A.2d 799.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
On the briefs:
Martha J. Harris, Esq., Paine, Lynch & Harris, P.A., Bangor,
for appellant Marie J. (Marchiori) Eremita
David M. Lipman, Esq., and Peter B. Bickerman, Esq., Lipman
& Katz, P.A., Augusta, for appellee Cristiano A. Marchiori
Bangor District Court docket number FM-2012-711
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY