Opinion ID: 2082836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Safe Approach, Inc., and Roger's boat.

Text: [¶ 12] The court awarded to Roger his interest in Safe Approach, Inc. In determining the value of the company, the District Court heard testimony from two expert witnesses. Based on that testimony, the court concluded that the fair market value of Roger's 50% interest in Safe Approach, Inc. was $112,000. The District Court, in determining Safe Approach's market value, noted that its valuation, is... conservative considering all of the ... options.... We will not substitute our judgment for it on that issue. See Kapler, 2000 ME 131, ¶ 9, 755 A.2d at 507. [¶ 13] The court determined that Roger's interest in Safe Approach was marital property. It awarded that interest to Roger and ordered him to pay one-half of the value attributed to that interest in the company to Deborah. The court also assigned Roger the responsibility for repayment of the debt secured by the second mortgage on the Taywood Road real estate. Roger borrowed this money in 1994 and, subsequently, loaned it to Safe Approach. Safe Approach has been amortizing the debt. [¶ 14] The parties requested that the court award Roger the boat and boat-slip. The court subsequently awarded Roger the parties' Century cabin cruiser and the boat-slip at the Jordan Bay Marina. [¶ 15] When making its property award, the District Court noted that the court is convinced that an equal division of marital assets would not be equitable or just under the circumstance of this case. There is no question that the plaintiff's insurance proceeds should not be divided equally or fractionally but should be awarded entirely to the plaintiff. Also the court has considered in detail the value of the defendant's interest in Safe Approach, Inc[.] and considers its conclusion of value as the more conservative considering all of the other options .... [¶ 16] We again emphasize the general rule that a divorce court is not required to make an equal distribution of marital property; rather, it is required to make the division fair and just considering all of the circumstances of the parties. Doucette, 2001 ME 38, ¶ 24, 766 A.2d at 586 (citation omitted). It is clear to us that the District Court properly considered all of the circumstances of the parties. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the court exceeded the bounds of its discretion when dividing the marital assets and debts. See Long, 1997 ME 171, ¶ 19, 697 A.2d at 1324 (citation omitted).