Opinion ID: 2353046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alan's Appeal

Text: [¶ 13] Alan contends that the attachment ordered against his property after the entry of the divorce judgment constitutes newly discovered evidence, and that the allocation of that debt in its entirety to Alan is inequitable. [¶ 14] Alan first argues that the court abused its discretion by failing to grant a new trial. We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. Chiapetta v. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 583 A.2d 198, 203 (Me.1990). New trials based on newly discovered evidence are disfavored and granted only upon convincing proof. Id. Although an attachment can be issued pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 4A(c) only on a finding that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will prevail at trial in an amount which at least equals the amount sought to be attached, Schneider v. Cooper, 687 A.2d 606, 608 (Me.1996), at the time of the divorce judgment, the trial court was aware of the pending litigation in which Alan and his brother were codefendants, and that the plaintiff in that case was seeking more than three million dollars. Accordingly, the court acted within its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial or amend its judgment based on the subsequent attachment. See Chiapetta, 583 A.2d at 203. [¶ 15] Alan further argues that the court abused its discretion in assigning to him the entire contingent debt involved in the lawsuit in which the attachment was made. We review the division of marital property and debt for an abuse of discretion. Bonville v. Bonville, 2006 ME 3, ¶ 9, 890 A.2d 263, 266. In a proceeding for a divorce, . . . the court shall set apart to each spouse the spouse's property and shall divide the marital property in proportions the court considers just after considering all relevant factors. . . . 19-A M.R.S. § 953(1) (2006). The statute does not require that all property, including marital debt, be divided evenly, only that the division must be just considering the parties' circumstances. Carter v. Carter, 2006 ME 68, ¶ 14, 900 A.2d 200, 203-04. [¶ 16] The court assigned to Alan the contingent debt based on Alan's alleged wrongdoing. It otherwise divided marital property evenly, in an equitable way, and Alan retained possession of all of the couple's investments and profit-making property. The court acted within its discretion in declining to reallocate the marital debt. See Tibbetts v. Tibbetts, 2000 ME 210, ¶ 10, 762 A.2d 937, 940.
[¶ 17] Alan also contends that the court erred by classifying good will derived from his investment business as divisible marital property, arguing that nearly all of the intangible value of Hess Investments consists of personal good will attributable solely to him, and that that good will cannot be considered as divisible marital property. Alan urges us to adopt two concepts of good will: enterprise good will, which is readily transferable and, thus, can be divisible marital property, and personal good will, which is inextricably linked to an individual and, therefore, not divisible marital property. See May v. May, 214 W.Va. 394, 589 S.E.2d 536, 541-42 (2003). On the evidence presented to the court in this case, however, we find it unnecessary to adopt either concept of good will. [¶ 18] Both Alan's expert and Rhonda's expert testified that a large portion of the value of Hess Investments stems from good will, and both experts assigned a value to the business, using an income as well as a market approach to calculate the value. Although they had different opinions as to what Alan could expect to receive upon transferring that business, both experts testified that the good will of the business had substantial value that could be quantified and realized from a sale of the business. After discussing the different approaches of each of the two experts who testified as to the valuation of Hess Investments, the District Court expressly found the approach, methodology and factors utilized by [Rhonda's expert] more reliable in establishing the fair market value for Hess Investments, and thereby adopt[ed] that opinion of value as the finding of value in this case for Hess Investments. [¶ 19] The court's finding that the intangible assets of Hess Investments, including the company's good will, are transferable, and can be valued as divisible marital property, is supported in the record, and the court did not err in concluding that the good will value of Alan's business is a marital asset.