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	tr ial,	and	alter ation or	amend ment	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	 t o	 include	 with	 the motion	 suggested	 findings	 that	 are	 both	 specific	 and	 supported	 by	 the

rec ord.” )

. Eremita’s	 motion did not include any proposed	 fin dings and therefore	 did	 not	 comply	 with	 the	 requirement s 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	of3 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 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY