Opinion ID: 2353046
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subsequent Attachment on Property and Allocation of Contingent Debt

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.