Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3127 (2026)

Installment payments

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1971, c. 408, §1 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 155, §1 (RPR). PL 1987, c. 184, §9 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 587, §4 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1980–1991 · leading case: In Re Kingsbury, 124 B.R. 146 (Bankr. D. Me. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Kingsbury, 124 B.R. 146 (Bankr. D. Me. 1991). · cites it 4× “§ 4422(1), (3), (7), (15), and (16); and under 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 3127, 3127-A, 3127-B, and 3128.”
Wells v. State, 474 A.2d 846 (Me. 1984). “Although we need not now adopt the proposition urged by the State that debtors cannot waive the disclosure hearing and initial judicial determination of ability to pay required by 14 M.R.S.A. § 3127, we do hold that a debtor’s agreement to make certain payments does not relieve…”
State v. Curry, 420 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “Focusing on the statute’s qualification that the individual be able to provide support, the defendant suggests that his support obligation was limited by the formula for installment payments after disclosure hearing under 14 M.R.S.A. § 3127. Curry then argues that the evidence…”
Spear v. Roger's Inc., 503 A.2d 1299 (Me. 1986). “Because ability to pay is implicit in a disclosure order under 14 M.R.S.A. § 3127(1) (Supp.1985), Lavigne’s failure to appear to present evidence rebutting the presumption of the Defendant corporation’s ability to pay, although not subjecting him to arrest, would have warranted…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 3127(1) — 1 case
Spear v. Roger's Inc., 503 A.2d 1299 (Me. 1986). “Because ability to pay is implicit in a disclosure order under 14 M.R.S.A. § 3127(1) (Supp.1985), Lavigne’s failure to appear to present evidence rebutting the presumption of the Defendant corporation’s ability to pay, although not subjecting him to arrest, would have warranted…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.