Opinion ID: 2196291
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: division of stock ownership

Text: [¶ 13] Pepper argues that the trial court erred when it ruled that both Pepper and Curtis were to remain fifty percent owners of Thistle until Curtis had been cashed out. We disagree. In divorce proceedings, the trial court shall divide the marital property in proportions the court considers just after considering all relevant factors. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 953(1)(1998). Issues arising out of a divorce action, such as property division, alimony, custody and child support, are within the court's sound discretion, and the judgment of the court on such matters is entitled to substantial deference. Knight v. Knight, 680 A.2d 1035, 1037 (Me.1996) (internal citations omitted). [¶ 14] We have recently indicated that when dividing marital property the court should endeavor to divide the marital property in such a manner as to avoid continued financial interaction between the parties. Berry v. Berry, 658 A.2d 1097, 1099 (Me.1995). We have also dealt specifically with the situation in which a close corporation, owned equally by a husband and wife, was divided at the time of their divorce, and ruled that maintaining an arrangement in which the parties were financially intertwined was to be avoided. See Smith v. Smith, 1997 ME 29, ¶ 4, 690 A.2d 970, 972. It is within the trial court's discretion, however, to order that a party give the other a security interest in property. See Baker v. Baker, 444 A.2d 982, 986 (Me.1982). [¶ 15] Here, the court ordered that Curtis remain a fifty percent owner of Thistle Productions until such time as he is paid for his interest in the corporation. The order in effect provides Curtis with a security interest while facilitating the stock purchase and avoiding the destruction of the business. Pepper remains in control of the corporation, avoiding action that could paralyze the operation of the business. The court has set clear limits on the duration and scope of the arrangement. The majority of the corporation's value is not liquid, it is unrealistic to order that Curtis be paid for his share in the corporation in a single sum. Accordingly, in these circumstances, the court acted within its discretion when it concluded that Curtis remain a fifty percent shareholder until such time as Pepper fully purchased his interest. [¶ 16] The remaining contentions raised by Pepper are without merit. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.