Case Title: Eremita v. Marchiori

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016 ME 160

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2016-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
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