Opinion ID: 6221797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Referee’s Award of Attorney Fees

Text: [¶42] Riemann last argues that the referee should have been required to make specific findings as to Toland’s inability to pay her own attorney fees. However, application of the holding we now announce is not dependent on a determination that one party is in fact financially disadvantaged. Rather, an award of attorney fees pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 105 is committed to the fact finder’s sound discretion and necessarily requires consideration of the parties’ 13 The potential effect of a provision in a premarital agreement waiving attorney fees on a party’s ability to obtain child support also directly conflicts with the UPAA’s direction in section 604 that “[t]he right of a child to receive support” not be “adversely affected by a premarital agreement,” 19-A M.R.S. § 604; see Erpelding, 917 N.W.2d at 246, and frustrates a court’s ability to protect the best interest of the child, see Court v. Kiesman, 2004 ME 72, ¶¶ 9, 12-13, 850 A.2d 330. 24 relative capacity to absorb the costs of litigation in addition to all other relevant factors that serve to create a fair and just award under the totality of the circumstances. Pearson, 2015 ME 136, ¶ 45, 125 A.3d 1149; see Rosen v. Rosen, 651 A.2d 335, 336-337 (Me. 1994) (explaining that the “parties’ relative financial position . . . must be considered,” but that the trial court also “has discretion to consider all factors that reasonably bear on the fairness and the justness of the award”); see also Ackerman v. Yates, 2004 ME 56, ¶ 19, 847 A.2d. 418 (clarifying that the fact finder can consider the parties’ income and assets when assessing their relative financial positions). [¶43] Here, after making findings and recommendations as to the issues pending before her, the referee acknowledged her obligation to consider the parties’ capacity to absorb the cost of litigation, assessed the totality of the evidence, and concluded that Toland should be awarded $50,000 in attorney fees. The record includes the parties’ financial statements and child support affidavits as well as the parties’ tax returns and the premarital agreement. It also includes an attorney fee affidavit from Toland’s attorney, referencing counsel’s willingness to submit copies of billing statements for in camera review and providing counsel’s hourly rate and experience in the practice of 25 law. See Pearson, 2015 ME 136, ¶ 47 & n.7, 125 A.3d 1149; Miele v. Miele, 2003 ME 113, ¶ 17, 832 A.2d 760. [¶44] Finally, neither party argues that the amount of attorney fees awarded was unreasonable, and the referee’s findings as to the parties’ income for the purpose of determining the “child-related issues,” which were “many and complicated in this case,” provide sufficient bases for the award of attorney fees.14 See Pearson, 2015 ME 136, ¶ 46, 125 A.3d 1149 (determining that findings presented in the context of other issues “were sufficient to apprise the parties of the reasons why the amount of attorney fees awarded . . . was reasonable under the circumstances” when those findings also extended to the issue of attorney fees). Considering the disparity in the parties’ income as found by the referee, the totality of the circumstances, and the supporting record evidence, we discern no abuse of discretion in the referee’s award of attorney fees to be paid by Riemann. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. 14 Neither party argued to the referee, to the court, or to us that other issues beyond parental rights were litigated in this case, and the parties’ premarital agreement was dispositive as to most, if not all, other issues. Further, Toland’s attorney represented to the referee, and to us at oral argument, that the entire amount of his fees billed in this case were for his services in connection with the contested custody issue. 26 Keith P. Richard, Esq. (orally), Libby O’Brien Kingsley & Champion, LLC, Kennebunk, for appellant Helge Riemann Kenneth P. Altshuler, Esq. (orally), Childs Rundlett & Altshuler, Portland, for appellee Kristina A. Toland West Bath District Court docket number FM-2018-324 For Clerk Reference Only