Opinion ID: 1968146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Valuation of Maple Grove Nursing Home, Inc. and Lee Apartments

Text: [¶ 10] Habrle disputes the referee's valuation of Maple Grove Nursing Home and Lee Apartments. When a trial court accepts a report of a referee, the findings of the referee become the trial court's findings, and we review those findings directly. Raisen v. Raisen, 2006 ME 49, ¶ 6, 896 A.2d 268, 270 (quoting Warren v. Warren, 2005 ME 9, ¶ 19, 866 A.2d 97, 101). We therefore review the referee's determination of the value of marital property for clear error. See Robinson v. Robinson, 2000 ME 101, ¶ 12, 751 A.2d 457, 460. We will not disturb an estimate of value for the marital property that is within the range of expert opinion provided the fact-finder reached his own conclusion through an independent review of the evidence. Id. The trial court, or in this case the referee, has a duty to make findings sufficient to inform the parties of the reasoning underlying [his] conclusions and to provide for effective appellate review, Sewall v. Snook, 687 A.2d 234, 236 (Me.1996) (quotation marks omitted). We, however, will assume that the [referee] found all the facts necessary to support [his] decision when neither party has filed a motion for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. [¶ 11] With regard to Maple Grove Nursing Home, Inc., the referee calculated the marital equity in Maple Grove by considering the expert testimony of Stephanie Rice and Norman Gosline, and by reviewing the value sheets for the corporation. The referee determined the value of stockholder equity in the corporation to be $2,500,000. Habrle did not file a motion for further findings of fact or conclusions of law, and we assume, as we must, that the referee made the necessary factual findings to support his decision. Id. Therefore, the trial court did not commit clear error in accepting the referee's report regarding the valuation of Maple Grove Nursing Home, Inc. [¶ 12] Furthermore, with regard to Lee Apartments, there was no error in failing to include the dedicated bank accounts associated with Lee Apartments in the valuation of that property. The referee separately determined the value of the marital equity in the real estate and the value of the marital equity in the accounts. Habrle does not dispute the calculation of either value, and both the equity in the real estate and the accounts were classified as marital property. The fact that the two values were calculated separately is not clearly erroneous.