Opinion ID: 2049657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The July 13, 1981, orders

Text: Turning first to the 1981 orders, the husband argues that the Superior Court's conditional denial of the motion to enforce limited the wife's right to renew the motion to narrow circumstances that were not present at the time of the award of counsel fees. The husband argues that denial of the motion subject to said motion being raised, if necessary, subsequent to the Court's decision on defendant's motion to suspend, limited the wife's right to renew the motion to enforce to the situation where the husband continued to refuse to pay alimony even after his motion to suspend was denied. Since the husband paid the arrearage after the denial of his motion to suspend, the argument continues, the wife could not renew her request for counsel fees contained in the original motion to enforce. The husband also argues that the denial of the motion for award of expenses necessary to defend the husband's motion to suspend precluded the wife from subsequently requesting fees incurred in the defense of that motion. While the meaning of the 1981 orders is not entirely clear, we conclude that the language of both orders, fairly read, fails to support the husband's position. With respect to the denial of the motion to enforce, we agree that in using the words if necessary the court limited the right of the wife to renew the motion to the situation where the husband failed to comply with the demands of that motion after an unfavorable disposition of his motion to suspend. We see no reason, however, why the triggering noncompliance should be limited to failure to pay the alimony arrearage, when in fact the motion to enforce from the start demanded counsel fees and interest as well as the principal amount of the back alimony. With respect to the denial of the motion for award of expenses, we note that the motion sought expenses prospectively and was denied by the court on the ground that the wife had sufficient funds to retain counsel in the pending motions at this time.  (Emphasis added) The denial of a prospective request for counsel fees made at the beginning of divorce litigation will not preclude the court from considering award of fees at the conclusion of the proceedings. Compare 19 M.R.S.A. § 722(2) (1981) with 19 M.R.S.A. § 722(3) (1981). See M.R.Civ.P. 80(c). However, we need not decide which characterization of the 1981 orders was ultimately correct; it is sufficient for purposes of deciding the appeal that the meaning of the orders was ambiguous. While the doctrine of the law of the case is based on important policy considerations, [2] it is not applied as rigidly as the doctrine of res judicata. Grant v. City of Saco, 436 A.2d at 405. The doctrine does not serve as a complete bar to reconsideration of an issue when the prior ruling is provisional or lacks clarity .... Grant v. City of Saco, 436 A.2d at 405 (emphasis added). See also Sprague v. Washburn, 447 A.2d at 787 (a litigant may not, except for the most compelling reasons, reopen a question of law that another judge has already clearly decided in the same action) (emphasis added). Given the ambiguity and preliminary nature of the first justice's 1981 orders, it was incumbent on the second justice to place a reasonable interpretation upon those orders in construing their meaning. We cannot say that the second justice's conclusion that those orders did not finally decide the issue of counsel fees was unreasonable.