Opinion ID: 1537744
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Length of the Parties' Marriage

Text: [¶ 10] David also contends that the court erred in finding that the parties were married for twelve years in awarding spousal support. We agree with David that the evidence does not support, but instead contradicts, the court's finding on the length of the parties' marriage. See Macomber, 2003 ME 1, ¶ 6, 814 A.2d at 457. [¶ 11] Pursuant to the presumption of general support applied by the court, the length of the marriage is determined as of the date of the filing of the action for divorce. 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A)(1). There is no dispute that the parties married on December 11, 1993. There is also no dispute that Chandra filed her complaint for divorce on September 18, 2003. Thus, although the parties had been married twelve years by the time the divorce judgment was actually issued in December of 2005, for purposes of determining spousal support pursuant to section 951-A(2)(A)(1), the duration of the marriage must be measured from December of 1993 to September of 2003, a period of just less than ten years. Accordingly, the court's consideration of the twelve-year marriage period for the purposes of applying the statutory presumption in section 951-A(2)(A)(1) is error. [¶ 12] Moreover, the fact that the parties were married less than ten years for purposes of the statute means that, if the court awards general support, it must apply the rebuttable presumption that general support may not be awarded if the parties were married for less than 10 years as of the date of the filing of the action for divorce. 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A)(1). Chandra contends that, in any event, she presented enough evidence, and the court made sufficient findings and conclusions, to rebut that presumption. The language of the judgment, however, clearly indicates that the court did not consider the award of spousal support based on the presumption applicable to a marriage of less than ten years, as it was required to do, but rather applied the presumption applicable to a marriage of ten years or more. Because the court applied the wrong rebuttable presumption applicable to general spousal support, we must remand to the District Court for reconsideration of the award of spousal support. [¶ 13] Finally, contrary to David's contentions, we discern no error in the court's determination of the parties' income potential, or in the court's manner of dealing with refinancing of the marital home. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.