Opinion ID: 2789705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jessica’s Motion To Enforce

Text: Despite the amicable dissolution proceeding, Morrill and Jessica’s postdissolution relationship soon became more adversarial. In October 2011 Jessica filed her first motion for an order enforcing the dissolution decree. The motion alleged that Morrill was impermissibly removing from the home property that belonged to Jessica under the terms of the dissolution agreement. At the evidentiary hearing related to her motion to enforce, Jessica also alleged that Morrill had not paid her the 50% share of the 2011 commercial fishing profits to which he had agreed. The standing master’s report concluded that Morrill was obligated to pay Jessica half of the 2011 commercial fishing income from the cannery, less fuel and dues, immediately. -3- 6991 Morrill immediately objected to the master’s report, arguing that the word “profit” meant “the positive income left after subtracting expenses from revenue,” and that he was not afforded an opportunity to subtract his expenses other than fuel and cannery dues. He asserted that typical additional expenses included “pay[ing] deckhands,” as well as “supplies, gear, bait, etc.,” and that he typically spends “thousands of dollars in preseason costs . . . out of pocket before the boat even gets in the water.” Superior Court Judge Anna Moran conducted a de novo review and approved the master’s report. Addressing Morrill’s objection, the superior court found “that Master Wells reasonably concluded Mrs. Mahan was to receive 50% of 2011 income from cannery income less deductions for fuel, dues and other advancements” and ordered payment of that amount. Following the order, Morrill made a one-time $15,000 payment to Jessica. But Morrill now characterizes this payment as an “advance” that did not “account[] for Jessica[’s] share of expenses.” C. Jessica’s Motion To Show Cause And Morrill’s Cross-Motion For Money Judgment In July 2013 Jessica filed a motion to show cause alleging, among other grievances, that Morrill had “failed to pay any funds towards the 2012 fishing money owed or demonstrate [that] he fully paid her portion of 2011 funds.” In opposition, Morrill filed a cross-motion for money judgment and asserted for the first time that the total fishing losses in 2011 and 2012 amounted to $96,826. He requested a judgment in the amount of $48,413 — half of the total losses. Jessica responded that Morrill in fact owed her $49,079 as her share of the 2011 and 2012 fishing profits. After hearing additional testimony from Morrill and Jessica, Magistrate Judge Wells issued another report, which noted that the term “profits” already had been defined in her previous report and had been reviewed de novo by the superior court -4- 6991 following Morrill’s objection in 2012. Nevertheless, Magistrate Judge Wells held an additional evidentiary hearing and issued a new series of findings in a master’s report, which concluded that “[t]here is virtually nothing in the contract’s purpose, the extrinsic evidence, or the contract’s written terms, to support Mr. Mahan’s interpretation.” The report recommended that the superior court “continue to use its prior definition of this term.” In January 2014 the superior court approved the master’s report and ordered that the term “profits” continue to be defined as “payment from the cannery, less deductions for fuel, dues and other advancements.” Morrill appeals.