Download as PDF
Back to Opinions Page
Maine Supreme Judicial Court Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2005 ME 91
Docket: Yor-04-606
Submitted
on Briefs: April 20, 2005
Decided: July 29, 2005
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, DANA, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.*
LAURIE WEBB
v.
JEFFREY WEBB
CLIFFORD, J.
[¶1] Laurie Webb appeals from a judgment of divorce between Laurie and Jeffrey Webb entered in the District Court (Springvale, Janelle, J.). Although the parties agreed to the terms of the divorce, the court entered the judgment following the failure of the parties to agree on specific language implementing the terms of that agreement. Laurie contends that the court's divorce judgment does not properly comport with the parties' agreement. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
[¶2] The Webbs were married in 1988 and have three minor children. In December of 2002, Laurie initiated divorce proceedings pursuant to 19‑A M.R.S.A. § 902(1)(H) (1998).[1] At a settlement hearing with the court in July of 2004, the parties reached an agreement as to the provisions of a divorce judgment and read the terms of that agreement into the record. The court approved the stipulated provisions and requested that Jeffrey's attorney submit a proposed judgment in accordance with the stipulated terms.
[¶3] A draft judgment was prepared, but Laurie would not agree to its language. Laurie's attorney then drafted and submitted to the court an alternate proposed judgment, which consisted merely of a verbatim transcript of the recorded settlement hearing. On October 1, 2004, following at least two additional hearings, the court entered a divorce judgment, with an accompanying child support order and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which the court understood to incorporate the terms of the parties' agreement with regard to parental rights and responsibilities, real estate, personal property, child and spousal support, insurance, debts, taxes, and attorney fees. Laurie filed this appeal following the entry of that judgment.
[¶4] Laurie contends that the divorce judgment entered by the court fails to accurately incorporate the terms of the parties' agreement in four respects. With respect to the court's understanding of the terms to which the parties agreed, we review the judgment for clear error. Cf. Thompson v. Rothman, 2002 ME 39, ¶¶ 6‑8, 791 A.2d 921, 923-24 (discussing the standard of review for trial court orders reviewing and clarifying prior orders of the court). As to the additional language used by the court in the divorce judgment, however, our review is deferential, and is limited to whether the court exceeded the bounds of its discretion. See Jacobs v. Jacobs, 507 A.2d 596, 600 (Me. 1986). "Unless [we] can determine that the court has violated some positive rule of law or has reached a result which is plainly and unmistakably an injustice that is