 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doucette v. Washburn2/22/2001
Reporter of Decisions
Submitted on Briefs: December 20, 2000
Carl Washburn appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Delahanty, J.) affirming a divorce judgment entered in the District Court (Portland, Sheldon, J.). Washburn challenges the court's conclusions regarding the identification and distribution of the parties' marital property. Primarily at issue is the nature of the proceeds of a lump sum workers' compensation settlement received by Washburn during the marriage. We affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
At the time of the divorce hearing, Carl Washburn and Jeanne Doucette had been married for almost twenty-eight years. Washburn was forty-eight years old and Doucette was forty-six. Neither of the parties has any education beyond high school. They have three adult daughters. Throughout much of the marriage, Washburn worked for S.D. Warren. Doucette worked in the home raising the children and in occasional retail jobs while their daughters were growing up.
Doucette left the family residence in 1992 or 1993. No decree of legal separation was ever issued. Washburn remained in the family home during the separation and maintained control of the marital assets. Doucette received no spousal support from Washburn during the separation. Doucette now works as an assistant manager for a retail store and earns $8 per hour. She cannot afford a car. She will have to pay $17.60 per week for health insurance through her employer, is earning no pension benefits, and lives with her mother, whom she pays $50 per week for room and board.
Washburn was injured in several work-related accidents at S.D. Warren. He retired in 1994 with a workers' compensation lump sum settlement of $225,000, and a pension that had a present value of $102,078 at the time of the hearing. Most of the lump sum award still exists and is in an account in Washburn's name only. The account increased in value during the marriage.
Doucette filed for divorce in August 1996, but the matter was not heard until December 1998. In the divorce judgment, the court determined that Washburn's pension was entirely marital because it was a benefit that Washburn had earned entirely within the period of the marriage. Addressing the lump sum workers' compensation award, the court found that a portion of the award was marital and a portion was non-marital. It set apart the non-marital component to Washburn, and went on to divide the parties' marital property. The value of the marital property totaled $331,407 and the non-marital property totaled $267,019. Ultimately, Washburn received $267,019 in non-marital property and $58,639 in marital property, totaling $325,658. Doucette owned no non-marital property. She received $272,768 in marital property. The court denied her request for spousal support.
Washburn appealed to the Superior Court, and the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Washburn then filed this appeal, and Doucette cross-appealed. Among other things, Washburn contends that the court should have found the entire lump sum workers' compensation award to have been a non-marital asset and argues that the court erred in awarding a greater proportion of the marital property to Doucette. In her cross-appeal, Doucette contends that the court erred in its treatment of the lump sum workers' compensation award, challenges the court's distribution of marital property, and challenges the court's refusal to award her alimony. Doucette presses her cross-appeal, however, only in the event that the trial court's judgment is vacated as a result of Washburn's appeal.
DISCUSSION
When the Su
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maine Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|