Title: Quinty v. Johnson

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 117 
Docket: 
Yor-16-482 
 
Submitted 
On Briefs: May 25, 2017 
Decided: 
June 8, 2017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
KIMBERLY A. QUINTY 
 
v. 
 
STEVEN W. JOHNSON 
 
 
ALEXANDER, J. 
 
[¶1]  Kimberly A. Quinty appeals from the judgment of the District Court 
(York, Janelle, J.) granting Steven W. Johnson’s motion to dismiss her motion 
to extend the spousal support provision of the couple’s 2011 divorce 
judgment.  Quinty argues on appeal that the court misapplied 19-A M.R.S. 
§ 951-A(4) and (9) (2016) when it concluded that reinstating the award of 
spousal support after the obligation to pay spousal support had expired was 
prohibited by law.  We affirm the judgment. 
I.  CASE HISTORY 
[¶2]  Quinty and Johnson were married in 1991.  After eighteen years of 
marriage, Quinty filed a complaint for divorce from Johnson in 2010.  On 
March 9, 2011, after an uncontested hearing, the parties were divorced by 
 
 
2 
entry of a divorce judgment (Cantara, J.), which incorporated the parties’ 
negotiated settlement agreement, dated February 24, 2011.  Pursuant to that 
agreement, Johnson was ordered to pay Quinty general spousal support for a 
period of five years, beginning on March 1, 2011, and ending with a final 
payment on February 29, 2016. 
 
[¶3]  On July 8, 2016, Quinty filed a motion to modify the divorce 
judgment to reinstate and to extend the term of the spousal support obligation 
pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(4).  Johnson timely filed a motion to dismiss, 
arguing that Quinty’s motion failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted.  See M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  Johnson asserted that when his spousal 
support obligation terminated on February 29, 2016, Quinty’s ability to 
request a modification expired.  Quinty objected to Johnson’s motion to 
dismiss, arguing that the divorce judgment did not expressly terminate the 
court’s authority to modify the spousal support award. 
 
[¶4]  On September 23, 2016, the court (Janelle, J.) held a 
non-testimonial hearing on the motion to dismiss and issued an order 
granting the motion that day.  Citing 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(9) and Pettinelli v. 
Yost, 2007 ME 121, ¶ 19, 930 A.2d 1074, the court concluded that Johnson’s 
obligation to pay spousal support had ceased on February 29, 2016, and that 
 
 
3 
Quinty’s “belated attempt to reinstate spousal support” was barred by both 
statute and case law.  Quinty timely filed a notice of appeal.  See 14 M.R.S. 
§ 1901 (2016); M.R. App. P. 2. 
II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS 
 
[¶5]  When we review a trial court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 
dismiss, we review the legal sufficiency of the pleading de novo and view the 
pleading in the light most favorable to the party filing the pleading to 
determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts 
that would entitle that party to relief pursuant to some legal theory.  
See Andrews v. Sheepscot Island Co., 2016 ME 68, ¶ 8, 138 A.3d 1197. 
 
[¶6]  A court may award spousal support to a party in a divorce 
proceeding pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A (2016).  For a spousal support 
award issued before October 1, 2013, section 951-A(4) provides: “An award of 
spousal support issued before October 1, 2013[,] is subject to modification 
when it appears that justice requires unless and to the extent the order 
awarding or modifying spousal support expressly states that the award, in 
whole or in part, is not subject to future modification.”  However, “[t]he 
complete termination of a spousal support award pursuant to the terms of the 
 
 
4 
award or a final post-judgment order forever precludes the reinstatement of 
spousal support in that action.”  Id. § 951-A(9). 
 
[¶7]  The terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, incorporated into 
the divorce judgment, specified that Johnson’s five-year spousal support 
obligation terminated on February 29, 2016.  Quinty filed her motion to 
modify four months after that obligation had expired.  The court correctly 
concluded that its authority to reinstate the spousal support award had 
ceased, and, therefore, that Quinty’s untimely motion failed to allege facts that 
would entitle her to relief pursuant to some legal theory.  See Pettinelli, 
2007 ME 121, ¶ 19, 930 A.2d 1074; Raisen v. Raisen, 2006 ME 49, ¶ 8, 
896 A.2d 268 (stating that a party who was awarded general spousal support 
for a fixed term of five years could request an extension of spousal support “by 
timely motion”); Spencer v. Spencer, 1998 ME 252, ¶ 12, 720 A.2d 1159 
(“Because the court cannot alter or amend that which does not exist, a motion 
to reestablish an award of spousal support cannot be entertained by a court 
after the date of complete termination of an outstanding award.”). 
The entry is: 
 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
Dana E. Prescott, Esq., Prescott Jamieson Murphy Law Group, LLC, Saco, for 
appellant Kimberly A. Quinty 
 
Amy T. Robidas, Esq., Robidas Law, LLC, Portland, for appellee Steven W. 
Johnson 
 
 
York District Court docket number FM-2010-126 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY