Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Bell, 1998 ME 123 (Me. 1998).
· cites it 2× “…1095 (Me.1989) (suggesting the defense of laches is not available in actions to establish a money debt). 6 . Former 19 M.R.S.A. § 317.”
True v. True, 615 A.2d 252 (Me. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Fully aware that the parties would be sharing equally in the parenting of their children, and taking into account the fact that Michael’s income was substantially higher than Julianne’s, the court pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. § 317 ordered a substantial deviation from the child…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hager, 2000 ME 140 (Me. 2000).
· cites it 3× “1993), though he did not provide the court with the proposed written findings required by the statute, see 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(2) (Supp.1993). Though Hager did argue that he was the primary caregiver, he did not argue that he was entitled to the presumption contained in 19 M.”
Glew v. Glew, 1999 ME 114 (Me. 1999).
“See 19 M.R.S.A. § 317 (Supp.1990) (effective Apr.”
Guilford Cnty. Ex Rel. Easter v. Easter, 473 S.E.2d 6 (N.C. 1996).
“1993) (trial court may consider the “financial resources of custodial parent”); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 317(3)(E) (West Supp.”
Powell v. Powell, 645 A.2d 622 (Me. 1994).
“” 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(3)(P) (Supp.1993). It was not erroneous for the court to conclude that John’s travel expenses will not be substantial, especially in light of his employment benefit of flying at no charge.”
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 597 A.2d 62 (Me. 1991).
“In the present case, the court justified its deviation on the fact that the defendant will provide residential care more than 30% of the time, 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(3)(A), and that application of the guidelines would be unjust, inappropriate, and not in the child’s best interests.”
Hedrich v. Hedrich, 1998 ME 248 (Me. 1998).
“Deviation from child support guidelines was governed by 19 M.R.S.A. § 317 (Pamph.1996), repealed by P.”
Fowler v. Fowler, 1997 ME 231 (Me. 1997).
“” 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(3)(Q). If the court deviates from the guidelines pursuant to section 317, it must “incorporate into the order its written findings in support of the deviation.”
Daigle v. Daigle, 609 A.2d 1153 (Me. 1992).
“See 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(3)(E) & (G) (Supp.1991).”
Redmond v. Magoon, 611 A.2d 562 (Me. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The court also pointed out to Magoon that pursuant to the child support guidelines, it would have to consider whether the tax consequences of a right to claim a child as a dependent for tax purposes would require alteration of the support award.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 317(1) — 1 case
True v. True, 615 A.2d 252 (Me. 1992).
“Fully aware that the parties would be sharing equally in the parenting of their children, and taking into account the fact that Michael’s income was substantially higher than Julianne’s, the court pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. § 317 ordered a substantial deviation from the child…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 317(2) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hager, 2000 ME 140 (Me. 2000).
“1993), though he did not provide the court with the proposed written findings required by the statute, see 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(2) (Supp.1993). Though Hager did argue that he was the primary caregiver, he did not argue that he was entitled to the presumption contained in 19 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 317(3)(A) — 2 cases
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 597 A.2d 62 (Me. 1991).
“In the present case, the court justified its deviation on the fact that the defendant will provide residential care more than 30% of the time, 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(3)(A), and that application of the guidelines would be unjust, inappropriate, and not in the child’s best interests.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hager, 2000 ME 140 (Me. 2000).
“1993), though he did not provide the court with the proposed written findings required by the statute, see 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(2) (Supp.1993). Though Hager did argue that he was the primary caregiver, he did not argue that he was entitled to the presumption contained in 19 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 317(3)(E) — 3 cases
Guilford Cnty. Ex Rel. Easter v. Easter, 473 S.E.2d 6 (N.C. 1996).
“1993) (trial court may consider the “financial resources of custodial parent”); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 317(3)(E) (West Supp.”
Daigle v. Daigle, 609 A.2d 1153 (Me. 1992).
“See 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(3)(E) & (G) (Supp.1991).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 317(3)(L) — 1 case
Redmond v. Magoon, 611 A.2d 562 (Me. 1992).
“The court also pointed out to Magoon that pursuant to the child support guidelines, it would have to consider whether the tax consequences of a right to claim a child as a dependent for tax purposes would require alteration of the support award.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 317(3)(P) — 1 case
Powell v. Powell, 645 A.2d 622 (Me. 1994).
“” 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(3)(P) (Supp.1993). It was not erroneous for the court to conclude that John’s travel expenses will not be substantial, especially in light of his employment benefit of flying at no charge.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 317(3)(Q) — 2 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Bell, 1998 ME 123 (Me. 1998).
“…1095 (Me.1989) (suggesting the defense of laches is not available in actions to establish a money debt). 6 . Former 19 M.R.S.A. § 317.”
Fowler v. Fowler, 1997 ME 231 (Me. 1997).
“” 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(3)(Q). If the court deviates from the guidelines pursuant to section 317, it must “incorporate into the order its written findings in support of the deviation.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 317(Q) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hager, 2000 ME 140 (Me. 2000).
“1993), though he did not provide the court with the proposed written findings required by the statute, see 19 M.R.S.A. § 317(2) (Supp.1993). Though Hager did argue that he was the primary caregiver, he did not argue that he was entitled to the presumption contained in 19 M.”
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.