Opinion ID: 1975002
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Allocation of responsibility for marital debt.

Text: Murray challenges the court's allocation of responsibility for marital debt. The court allocated the following marital debt to Murray: (1) an I.R.S. lien for approximately $42,000 on 5.1 acres of land, valued at approximately $30,000, that was awarded to Murray; (2) a debt to Anne C. Smith, Murray's sister, in the amount of $15,000; (3) any debt or liability related to the personal property awarded to Murray. [1] Murray argues that the court found the marital debt to be $59,000. Murray concedes that the division of debt need not be equal, but he contends that it must be just. Murray attempts to highlight the apparent inequity of this decision by discussing the facts concerning the acquisition of the New Gloucester and Bailey Island properties. [2] Murray concludes by asserting that in light of the allocation of $380,000 [3] in nonmarital assets to Harding, Murray's recent bankruptcy and, the allocation of 97% [4] of the marital debt to him, the court's judgment is inequitable and should be set aside. See 19 M.R.S.A. § 722-A. Murray's argument is undercut by three factors. First, 19 M.R.S.A. § 722-A(1)(A) permits the court to consider the contributions of the homemaker spouse. The evidence is clear that Harding made significant contributions to the marriage as a homemaker. Second, 19 M.R.S.A. § 722-A(1)(C) permits the court to consider the relative economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective. Harding has a limited earning capacity as a result of her limited education, 30 year absence from the job market and health problems. Murray, on the other hand, has substantial yearly income. Third, contrary to Murray's assertion, Harding is solely responsible for the $98,664.94 mortgage on the New Gloucester property, a marital debt, and Murray's liability on the marital debt assigned to him could be reduced to $12,000 by the sale of the marital property he was awarded. [5] The court's allocation of marital debt appears to be equitable and there appears to be rational and credible evidence in the record to support the court's decision. Accordingly, we will not disturb the court's decision on appeal. See Terison, 600 A.2d at 1124.