Opinion ID: 2382893
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Property Division in Second Divorce Judgment

Text: In his appeal of the divorce judgment, Joseph contends the court erred in its determination that the Oakdale Street residence was Carol's nonmarital property. He argues that the property should be his nonmarital property, or, alternatively, if Carol is the owner, that the property is partly marital because marital income was expended towards its maintenance and improvements. Carol did not acquire the property on Oakdale Street during the second marriage. Joseph conveyed that property to Carol prior to the second marriage as an inducement to the marriage and she never reconveyed any part of it to him. Therefore, there is no presumption that the property is marital, see 19 M.R.S.A. § 722-A(3), and absent other evidence, the property is nonmarital and had to be distributed to Carol. See West v. West, 550 A.2d 1132, 1133 (Me.1988). Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Joseph's contention that because Carol did not pay for the property it is subject to a constructive trust for the benefit of Joseph. Relying on Hall v. Hall, 462 A.2d 1179 (Me.1983), Joseph further contends that because marital funds were used to maintain and improve the property, it is partly marital and a portion of its value should have been set aside to him. Pursuant to Hall, if the value of otherwise nonmarital property is enhanced by the use of marital funds or marital effort, then the property, to the extent of that enhancement, becomes marital. Hall, 462 A.2d at 1182. It was, however, Joseph's burden to establish the amount by which the use of marital funds has enhanced the value of the property. Id.; Macdonald v. Macdonald, 532 A.2d 1046, 1050 (Me.1987). The court made no such findings, and no additional findings were requested. See M.R.Civ.P. 52. On this record, the court was not compelled to find that the value of the Oakdale Street property was enhanced by marital funds or marital effort. See Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978, 981-82 (Me.1981).
There were three automobiles used by the parties. The divorce judgment provided that those vehicles remain with the party actually using them. Joseph retained the 1987 BMW and a 1983 Toyota, and Carol retained the 1984 Toyota Cressida. Joseph contends that it was clear error for the court to allow Carol to retain the 1984 Toyota because it was Joseph's nonmarital property. We disagree. The divorce judgment provided that the primary physical residence of the children be with Carol. Carol's only mode of transportation was the 1984 Toyota Cressida. The court, although recognizing that the vehicle was Joseph's separate property, nevertheless allowed Carol to retain the car. Although nonmarital property is not subject to distribution in the same way as marital property, see West, 550 A.2d at 1133, the court is vested with broad discretion to address Joseph's obligation to provide support for his wife and three children. By allowing Carol to have the vehicle she presently uses, the court was acting in a practical way, providing that an asset of Joseph continue to serve as transportation for Carol and the children. We decline to disturb the court's decision. The entry is: In CV-83-532: Order denying relief from judgment vacated. Remanded with direction to vacate the judgment entered on June 25, 1990. In CV-88-1089: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.