Notes of Decisions
Henriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 1135 (Me. 1993).
· cites it 12× “See 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 721 to 722-A (governing alimony and disposition of property).”
Smith v. Smith, 419 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Therefore, he says, he could not be placed in a position where he would have to liquidate his non-marital assets in order to satisfy his alimony obligation.”
Skelton v. Skelton, 490 A.2d 1204 (Me. 1985).
· cites it 6× “Surveying William’s estate, consisting of the two parcels of land, valued by William at $53,000 and $43,000 respectively, the court determined that an award of $43,000, or in the alternative, the conveyance of the second parcel (on which sits the family home) would meet the…”
Pongonis v. Pongonis, 606 A.2d 1055 (Me. 1992).
· cites it 3× “In reaching its determination as to alimony, 19 M.R.S.A. § 721 (Supp.1991) requires that the trial court consider fifteen factors re *1059 lating to that issue.”
Peters v. Peters, 1997 ME 134 (Me. 1997).
· cites it 4× “[¶ 21] Carol contends the court abused its discretion when it did not award her greater alimony and that the factors in 19 M.R.S.A. § 721 (Supp.1996) 7 mandate a larger award.”
Merrill v. Merrill, 449 A.2d 1120 (Me. 1982).
· cites it 3× “d the inherent equitable authority to amend its original divorce decree, even if the amendment affects the original disposition or division of marital property; second, that the escrow provision of the amended judgment was not a division of marital property but was rather, by…”
Baker v. Baker, 444 A.2d 982 (Me. 1982).
· cites it 3× “” He contends— correctly—that the extent of the wife’s contribution to the marriage is relevant not to an award of alimony under 19 M.R.S.A. § 721 (1981), but to a disposition of property under 19 M.”
Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 640 A.2d 205 (Me. 1994).
· cites it 3× “” Partly because of this “economic misconduct,” 19 M.R.S.A. § 721(1)(M) (Supp. 1993), the court awarded to Hallman only nominal alimony.”
Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250 (Me. 1984).
· cites it 2× “§ 693 (1981), and modification of alimony and child support, see 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 721, 752 (1981 and Supp. 1983-1984).”
Gray v. Gray, 609 A.2d 694 (Me. 1992).
· cites it 3× “6 The divorce judgment in this case reflects that the court considered those factors. The judgment refers to the disparity between the parties in earning and in property distribution and the “very high life style” enjoyed by the parties during their marriage.”
Jacobs v. Jacobs, 507 A.2d 596 (Me. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Jacobs argues that the total financial burden imposed by the alimony obligation on top of that debt and the child support payments is unjust because in total it consumes by his computation “80% of his net income.” A divorce court is vested with broad powers to order one spouse…”
Dow v. Adams, 1998 ME 48 (Me. 1998).
· cites it 4× “2d 494, 496 (stating that 19 M.R.S.A. § 721 “provides the factors that the court must consider when determining whether a modification of alimony is appropriate.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(1) — 10 cases
Gray v. Gray, 609 A.2d 694 (Me. 1992).
“6 The divorce judgment in this case reflects that the court considered those factors. The judgment refers to the disparity between the parties in earning and in property distribution and the “very high life style” enjoyed by the parties during their marriage.”
Peters v. Peters, 1997 ME 134 (Me. 1997).
“[¶ 21] Carol contends the court abused its discretion when it did not award her greater alimony and that the factors in 19 M.R.S.A. § 721 (Supp.1996) 7 mandate a larger award.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(1)(A) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(1)(B) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(1)(I) — 2 cases
Henriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 1135 (Me. 1993).
“See 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 721 to 722-A (governing alimony and disposition of property).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(1)(M) — 2 cases
Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 640 A.2d 205 (Me. 1994).
“” Partly because of this “economic misconduct,” 19 M.R.S.A. § 721(1)(M) (Supp. 1993), the court awarded to Hallman only nominal alimony.”
Gray v. Gray, 609 A.2d 694 (Me. 1992).
“6 The divorce judgment in this case reflects that the court considered those factors. The judgment refers to the disparity between the parties in earning and in property distribution and the “very high life style” enjoyed by the parties during their marriage.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(2) — 5 cases
Peters v. Peters, 1997 ME 134 (Me. 1997).
“[¶ 21] Carol contends the court abused its discretion when it did not award her greater alimony and that the factors in 19 M.R.S.A. § 721 (Supp.1996) 7 mandate a larger award.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(4) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(5) — 6 cases
Pongonis v. Pongonis, 606 A.2d 1055 (Me. 1992).
“In reaching its determination as to alimony, 19 M.R.S.A. § 721 (Supp.1991) requires that the trial court consider fifteen factors re *1059 lating to that issue.”
Dow v. Adams, 1998 ME 48 (Me. 1998).
“2d 494, 496 (stating that 19 M.R.S.A. § 721 “provides the factors that the court must consider when determining whether a modification of alimony is appropriate.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(5)(1981) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(7) — 2 cases
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(M) — 1 case
Henriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 1135 (Me. 1993).
“See 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 721 to 722-A (governing alimony and disposition of property).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 721(l)(A) — 1 case
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.