Jessica A. (Nadeau) Potila v. Larry A. Nadeau

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2014 ME 5
Docket: Aro-13-182
Submitted
On Briefs: December 13, 2013
Decided: January 16, 2014
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
JESSICA A. (NADEAU) POTILA
v.
LARRY A. NADEAU
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Larry A. Nadeau appeals from a divorce judgment entered by the
District Court (Fort Kent, Soucy, J.) awarding shared primary residence of the
parties’ minor children, determining child support, and allocating the dependent
income tax exemptions. He contends that because the court erred in perceiving the
seriousness of Jessica A. (Nadeau) Potila’s substance abuse issues and income
earning capacity, the court abused its discretion in the challenged parental rights
determinations. Nadeau also asserts to us, and asserted in a motion for
reconsideration to the District Court, that a father with the same substance abuse
issues that he claims the mother has would not have received the shared primary
residence order issued in this case. Potila cross-appeals the judgment’s finding that
2
she failed to meet her burden of proving that a portion of the value of the marital
residence, owned by Nadeau prior to the marriage, is marital.
[¶2] Despite the highly charged claims of parental incompetence that
characterized this litigation and the parties’ relationship, there does not appear to
be any serious contention by Nadeau that the District Court erred in finding the
facts, except regarding Potila’s earning capacity. Rather, Nadeau expresses
disagreement with the District Court’s application of its discretionary judgment on
issues for which it has broad discretion. See Akers v. Akers, 2012 ME 75, ¶ 2,
44 A.3d 311.
[¶3] The District Court’s opinion demonstrates that it carefully considered
the evidence in the record and, after that consideration, issued a measured
judgment that thoughtfully, and with proper explanation, addressed each of the
issues presented to it for decision. Contrary to Nadeau’s contentions, the court did
not abuse its discretion in awarding shared primary residence given the evidence
regarding the past conduct of both parties and the interests of the children. See
Bulkley v. Bulkley, 2013 ME 101, ¶ 14, --- A.3d --- (“The ultimate determination of
the weight to be given each factor requires careful consideration by the court and is
done on an individualized, case-by-case basis.”); Akers, 2012 ME 75, ¶ 2, 44 A.3d
311 (setting forth the standard of review for a court’s decision regarding primary
residence). Particularly, it is evident that the court did not discriminate in any way
3
based on gender or any other status, but instead attempted to respect the direction
of the statute favoring the award of shared parental rights absent an explicit finding
that it would not be in a child’s best interests. See 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(1)(C)
(2013). Section 1653(1)(C) specifies:
The Legislature finds and declares that, except when a court
determines that the best interest of a child would not be served, it is
the public policy of this State to assure minor children of frequent and
continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated
or dissolved their marriage and to encourage parents to share the
rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this
policy.
[¶4] We also determine that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Nadeau a deviation from the child support guidelines based on the shared primary
residence or in allocating the dependent income tax exemptions between the
parties. See 19-A M.R.S. § 2007(2) (2013) (requiring a party seeking a child
support deviation to file proposed findings showing that the application of the
presumptive amount would be inequitable or unjust); Wong v. Hawk, 2012 ME
125, ¶ 17, 55 A.3d 425 (“We presume that a trial court did not abuse its discretion
in declining to deviate if a party fails to present proposed findings supporting
deviation.”); Johnson v. Smith, 1999 ME 168, ¶ 14, 740 A.2d 579; see also
Bojarski v. Bojarski, 2012 ME 56, ¶ 25 & n.3, 41 A.3d 544 (setting forth the
standard of review for allocation of the dependent tax exemption).
4
[¶5] Contrary to Potila’s contentions, the court did not err in finding that she
failed to meet her burden of proving the amount of any increase in the value of the
marital residence attributable to marital funds or labor. See Miliano v. Miliano,
2012 ME 100, ¶ 25, 50 A.3d 534 (“The amount of the increase in value [of
otherwise nonmarital property] is an essential element of the proof.”).
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
_________________________________
On the briefs:
Theodore M. Smith, Esq., Smith Law Offices, LLC, Van Buren, for
appellant Larry A. Nadeau
James M. Dunleavy, Esq., Currier and Trask, P.A., Presque Isle, for appellee
Jessica A. (Nadeau) Potila
Fort Kent District Court docket number FM-2012-33
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY