 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doucette v. Washburn2/22/2001
perior Court acts as an intermediate appellate court, we review the decision of the District Court directly. Kapler v. Kapler, 2000 ME 131, 6, 755 A.2d 502, 506. We will disturb a divorce judgment only if (1) the court's factual findings are clearly erroneous, (2) the court has erred as a matter of law, or (3) the court has abused its discretion in crafting the judgment. Nolette v. O'Neil, 679 A.2d 1084, 1085 (Me. 1996); Craigue v. Craigue, 617 A.2d 1027, 1029 (Me. 1992). The court's determination of the marital or non-marital nature of the property owned by the parties is reviewed for clear error. Sewall v. Saritvanich, 1999 ME 46, 14, 726 A.2d 224, 227. We will "not disturb the [marital property] determination if there is competent evidence in the record to support it." Id. 14, 726 A.2d at 227-28.
A. Workers' Compensation Lump Sum Award
Washburn's lump sum award was allocated by the workers' compensation hearing officer among three separate components: permanent impairment, wage replacement, and medical costs. After hearing the parties' testimony, the court set apart the permanent impairment component to Washburn as his non-marital property and determined that approximately 87% of the wage replacement and medical cost components were non-marital because they represented a replacement of assets that Washburn would have received after the divorce was final. The resulting calculation designated approximately 13% of the wage and medical cost components as marital property. Washburn contends that the District Court erred by finding that any part of his workers' compensation lump sum award was marital property. Alternatively, he argues that the court incorrectly calculated the marital components of the award.
Because workers' compensation benefits usually represent a replacement for lost earnings, they relate to "the earning power of the [marital] community" if received during the marriage, and therefore, will be determined to be marital property unless proven otherwise. Cummings v. Cummings, 540 A.2d 778, 779 (Me. 1988). The fact that the benefits are received in the form of a lump sum award does not result in an analysis different from any other asset. The spouse urging the non-marital status of any or all of the award must prove the existence of the non-marital component. Craigue, 617 A.2d at 1028.
There is no dispute here that the award was received during the marriage. It is also evident that the lump sum does not readily fall into one of the specific exceptions to the marital property presumption set out at 19-A M.R.S.A. ยง 953(2) (1998). It was not acquired before the marriage or after a legal separation; it was not excluded by agreement of the parties; it does not represent the increase in value of property acquired before the marriage; and it certainly was not acquired by gift, bequest, devise or descent. See id. Thus, unless Washburn demonstrates that the award represents, in whole or in part, a direct replacement of non-marital assets pursuant to section 953(2)(B), the award must be treated as marital property. See Sewall, 1999 ME 46, 17, 726 A.2d at 228 (holding that property acquired from the proceeds of non-marital property is non-marital).
The court accepted Washburn's evidence that the lump sum award contained the three distinct types of compensation: permanent impairment, wage replacement, and medical costs. It then went on to determine which, if any, of those components represented compensation for, or replacement of, non-marital assets. We address each component in turn.
1. Wage Replacement Component
The wage replacement component of a workers' compensation benefit is designed to replace earnings
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.
|
|