MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 20 20 ME 75 Docket: Cum

- 19

- 449 Submitted

On	Briefs: May	12,	2020 Decided: May	28,	2020

Panel: MEAD, GORMAN ,	JABAR
, HORTON,	and	CONNORS, JJ.

SUSAN	G.	COLUCCI

v.

STEPHEN	COLUCCI

CONNORS ,	J.
[¶1]	 	 Stephen	 Colucci	 appeals	 from	 a	 judgment	 of	 the	 District	 Court
(Portland, Mills,	J. )	granting	Susan	G.	Colucci’s	complaint	for	divorce.		Stephen

contends	that	the	court erred	in	awarding	the	parties’	dog	to	Susan because	the
dog	is	his	nonmarital	property

. 1 We	vacate	the	judgment.
[¶ 2 ]		Susan	and	Stephen	married	in	May	2015.		In	October 2017,	Susan
filed	a	complaint	 for	divorce. In	her	 financial	 statement	 filed	with	 the court,

1 Stephen	also	asserts	that	there	is	an	ambiguity	in	the	provision	of	the	judgment	that	requires him	to	pay	Susan twenty	percent of	the	profits	from	his	corporation. Specifically,	Stephen	contends that	the	court	did	not indicate whether	the	corporation’s	“profits” should	be determined	before	or after	 it	 pays	 Stephen	 his	 salary	 as	 a	 director.	 	 We	 see	 no	 ambiguity.	 	 In	 ruling	 on	 Ste phen’s post

- judgment	motion,	the	court stated that Stephen	could	“account	for	[his]	reasonable	salary	when determining	[the]	amount	due	to	[Susan] .” In	light	of	this	clarification ,	the	judgment	is	sufficiently clear	for	Stephen	to	make	a	payment	to	Susan that	he	believes,	in	good	faith,	satisfies	the	provision of	the	judgment	at	issue .		Therefore,	w e	decline	to	consider Stephen’s	argument further.2

see M.R.	Civ.	P.	108(c), Susan	listed two dog s as	marital	asset s .		S he indicated
, however, that one dog ,	Louise, was	acquired prior	to	the	marriage ,	in	2010

. At

trial,	 t he	 parties	 submitted no other evidence	 regarding	 when,	 or	 by	 which

party, Louise was	acquired.
[¶ 3 ]		In	August	2019,	the	court	entered	a	judgment	granting	the	divorce.
In	 its	 written	 decision,	 the	 court	 did	 not	 make	 any	 express	 factual	 findings
regarding	the	dog s ,	but	it ordered that both dog s be	“set	aside	to	[Susan]	as	her

ex clusive	property.”		Stephen	timely	filed	a motion pursuant	to	M.R.	Civ.	P.	52
, requesting a	finding	that Louise is his nonmarital	property and	as serting that

the	court	should	have	set	aside	 th at dog	 to	him .		The	court	denied Stephen’s
motion,	explaining	that	the	record	did	not	support his proposed	finding of	fact

or	conclusion	of	law

. Stephen	timely	appealed

. S ee M.R.	App.	P.	2B(c)(1)

. [¶ 4 ] Undisputed	 evidence	 establishes	 that Louise was	 acquired	 in

2010

— five	 years before the marria ge

. Therefore,	 the	 record	 compelled	 the

court	 to classify th at dog as nonmarital, see Miliano	v.	Miliano ,	2012	ME	100,

¶ 16,	 50 A.3d 534	 (stating	 that	 property	 acquired	 prior	 to	 the	 marriage	 is
nonmarital),	and	the	court	was	required	to	set	aside Louise to	its	owner	as	that
person’s	nonmarital	property, see	id

.3
[¶ 5 ] B ecause	the	parties	did	not	present	any	evidence of who

— Susan	or
Stephen

— acquired Louise in	 2010
, however, the	 court	 did	 not	 have	 an
adequate	evidentiary	basis	from	which it	could make	the	f indings	necessary	for

it	to	set	aside	th at dog	to	the	correct	party. Faced	with both parties’	failure	of
proof	on	this	question	of	fact,	i t	would	have	been	appropriate	for	the	court	to
reopen	 the	 record	 for the	 parties	 to	 submit	 additional	 evidence	 prior to
entering	a final judgment. See id. ¶	26	n.9.
[¶ 6] We vacate	 the	 judgment and	 remand	 for	 further	 proceeding s to
determine	 ownership	 of	 Louise

. See id. ¶ ¶ 16 ,	 26 ; McLean	 v.	 Robertson
,
2020 ME 15,	 ¶	 11,	 225	 A.3d	 410	 (stating	 that,	 where	 a	 party	 files	 a Rule 52

motion ,	 the	 court	 must	 ensure	 that	 the	 judgment	 is	 supported	 by	 factual
findings	that	are	based	on	record	evidence). We	note	that
, despite the	lack	of

record evidence	on this	issue
, Susan	and	Stephen are	no	doubt	aware	of	who

between	them acquired Louise in	2010 .		Thus, w e	are	confident	that	the	parties
will	be	able	to	resolve	what	should	be	an	undisputed	question	of	fact without
expending	further	judicial	resources.
The	entry	is:
Judgment vacated

. Remanded	 for	 further proceedings as	indicated	in	this	opinion

.4

Diane	 Dusini,	 Esq.,	 and	 Whitney	 Lallas,	 Esq.,	 Mittel A sen,	 LLC,	 Portland,	 for appellant	Stephen	Colucci
Dana	 E.	Prescott,	Esq.,	Prescott,	 Jamieson,	Murphy	Law	 Group,	LLC,	Saco,	 for appellee	Susan	G.	Colucci

Portla nd	District	Court	docket	number	FM

- 2017

- 952 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY