Opinion ID: 4521111
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of the Proceeds of Sale

Text: [¶15] The court accepted the parties’ stipulation that Strand was entitled to a credit of $41,566.97 for his payment of insurance, repairs, improvements, and real estate taxes. Its judgment first awarded that amount to Strand and 9 then equally divided the remaining proceeds of the property’s future sale (less associated costs) between the parties. [¶16] In her brief, and again at oral argument, Velandry stated that her share is too high because the court should have first divided the appraised value of the property equally and then subtracted Strand’s full credit from her half share. Not surprisingly, Strand, who did not raise this issue in his brief, agrees. The parties thus jointly agree that the judgment should be modified. We disagree because the court clearly intended as a net result that Strand receive $41,566.97 more than Velandry. That is what the judgment accomplished. Using the parties’ method, Strand would receive $83,133.94 more than Velandry—exactly twice what the court intended. The court’s methodology effecting its judgment is not erroneous, and we therefore decline to disturb the judgment notwithstanding the parties’ agreement that it should be modified on appeal. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. 10 Jens-Peter W. Bergen, Esq. (orally), Law Office of Jens-Peter W. Bergen, Kennebunk, for appellant Toralf H. Strand Paul S. Bulger, Esq. (orally), Jewell & Bulger, P.A., Portland, for appellee Sabrina Velandry York District Court docket number RE-2018-1 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY