Opinion ID: 1960451
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Disposition of Property

Text: John argues that the court did not comply with the following procedure in characterizing and distributing the marital and nonmarital property: (1) determine what of the parties' properties is marital and what is nonmarital, including the contributions each may have made to the acquisition of the marital property, and recognizing the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker; (2) set apart to each that spouse's nonmarital property; and (3) divide the marital property between them in such proportion as the court deems just. Grishman v. Grishman, 407 A.2d 9, 11 (Me. 1979). See 19 M.R.S.A. § 722-A (1981 & Supp.1993). Although we agree with John that the divorce judgment lacked specific findings with regard to the value of marital and nonmarital property, [6] we must assume that the court made the necessary subsidiary findings to support its more general conclusions in light of the absence of a request for additional findings on this issue. Moreover, a careful review of the record demonstrates sufficient support for the court's implied findings with regard to the division of the real estate. [7] We therefore reject John's argument that the court's division of the parties' assets was improper and inequitable. John's remaining contentions are without merit. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. Remanded to the Superior Court for the consideration of an award of attorney fees to defendant in light of the appeal and entry of the revised QDRO. All concurring.