Title: Eremita v. Marchiori
Citation: 2016 ME 160
Docket Number: Pen-15-573
State: Maine
Issuer: Maine Supreme Court
Date: October 25, 2016

Eremita v. Marchiori Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary In 2012, Wife instituted divorce proceedings against Husband on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The district court divided the parties’ assets and debts, awarded Wife spousal support, and denied Wife’s requests for retroactive interim support and attorney fees. Thereafter, Wife filed a motion purporting to request further findings of fact and conclusions of law, a new trial, and alteration or amendment of the judgment. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Wife’s motion did not comply with the requirements of Me. R. Civ. P. 52(b), and therefore, the court did not err by denying relief. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . Download PDF 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