Opinion ID: 2082836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: presentation

Text: [¶ 36] Although the trial court's thirty-five page opinion is extensive, it is not clear that it appreciated that it awarded Deborah approximately 85% of the marital net worth. Even if the life insurance proceeds are excluded, Deborah received over 70% of the remaining marital net worth. It would be helpful to the parties and to us in performing our appellate function if trial courts would set forth in table form the marital and non-marital assets awarded and the debts assigned to each party in a manner such as the following: DISTRIBUTION OF NON-MARITAL ASSET TO DEBORAH Eight shares in stock of family business 3,000 [6] 3,000 DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL ASSETS AND MARITAL DEBTS TO DEBORAH [7] Asset Net Asset Value Debt Owed Value Real estate 118,000 (52,000) 66,000 Value of Deborah's interest in Roger's business (note @ 7%) 56,000 56,000 Life insurance proceeds 150,000 150,000 Lease of 1998 Ford Explorer ? [8] ? Jewelry 2,500 2,500 Home furnishings 7,000 7,000 Savings Bank account nos. 1 & 2 1,708 1,708 IRA account 6,800 6,800 35 mm camera and video cameras 1,200 1,200 Discover credit card debt (1,835) (1,835) ________ TOTAL MARITAL NET WORTH 289,373 DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL ASSETS AND MARITAL DEBTS TO ROGER Asset Net Asset Value Debt Owed Value Interest in Safe Approach, Inc. 112,000 (56,000) 56,000 1988 Century cabin cruiser 29,000 (29,252) (252) Condo dock slip 17,000 17,000 1969 GT OPEL 6,200 (4,500) 1,700 1970 Elan snowmobile 700 700 Morgan promissory note (4/14/98) 10,000 10,000 Power tools 7,000 7,000 Violin and home furnishings 3,000 3,000 IRA account no. 1 5,200 5,200 IRA account no. 2 3,400 3,400 Reimburse Katie's Galaxy fund (5,700) (5,700) Home equity loan (29,810) (29,810) Condominium fees (3,660) (3,660) Personal loan (5,500) (5,500) VISA credit card debt (4,500) (4,500) Loan from Andre Drouin (1,500) (1,500) ________ TOTAL MARITAL NET WORTH 53,078 [¶ 37] A court must take into account [t]he value of the property set apart to each spouse as part of its disposition of the property. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 953(1)(B) (1998). Here, the overall distribution of the assets is unbalanced, which in some circumstances amounts to an abuse of discretion. See Beattie v. Beattie, 650 A.2d 950, 952 (Me.1994) (holding that, while certain elements of the divorce judgment may be supportable independently, the evidence [did] not support the cumulative effect of the judgment) (emphasis added). The court's judgment does not demonstrate that it understood the extent of its unequal division of marital property.