Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 19
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 722 (2026)

Payment of alimony, fees and support

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 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(REPEALED)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, §5 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 434 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 439, §4 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 668, §4 (RPR). PL 1985, c. 652, §44 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 694, §B1 (RP). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases, 1971–2000 · leading case: Raymond v. Raymond, 480 A.2d 718 (Me. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Raymond v. Raymond, 480 A.2d 718 (Me. 1984). · cites it 4× “" (Emphasis added) The denial of a prospective request for counsel fees made at the beginning of divorce litigation will not preclude the court from considering award of fees at the conclusion of the proceedings.”
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994). “1986); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 722 -A (1979); Md.”
Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So. 2d 909 (Miss. 1994). “, Family Law § 8-201 (1984); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 722 -A (1979); Mo.”
Wood v. Wood, 407 A.2d 282 (Me. 1979). · cites it 2× “2d at 726 ; 19 M.R.S.A. § 722 (Supp.1978). The entry is: (1) The appeal from the judgment reversing the modification order is sustained in part and denied in part; to the extent that the modification order operated prospectively the judgment of the Superior Court is set aside,…”
Meyer v. Meyer, 414 A.2d 236 (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “We have recently held that the criminal contempt sanction provided for in 19 M.R.S.A. § 722 (Supp.1979-80) 2 is not exclusive; that it is not the purpose of that section to deprive the District or Superior Court of the power to employ the sanction of civil contempt to achieve…”
Small v. Small, 413 A.2d 1318 (Me. 1980). · cites it 4× “As we have already stated, this contention by defendant has as its premise another claim by defendant, that the contempt adjudicated against him was a criminal contempt pursuant to the requirements of 19 M.R.S.A. § 722 4 which, says defendant, mandates criminal contempt, to the…”
Salenius v. Salenius, 654 A.2d 426 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “[3] 19 M.R.S.A. § 722-(A)(6), which became effective September 30, 1989, see P.”
Davidson v. Davidson, 474 N.E.2d 1137 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). “1984); and Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. § 767.255 (1981), exclude property acquired by a spouse through gift, bequest, devise or descent from division at divorce.”
Williams v. Massa, 728 N.E.2d 932 (Mass. 2000). “075 (5)(b)(2) (West 1997); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 722 -A (West 1981 & Supp.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 346 S.E.2d 430 (N.C. 1986). “Code § 20-107.3(A)(2) (Cum. Supp. 1986). The North Carolina General Assembly, unlike legislatures in those states, did not choose to provide such a presumption by statute, and this Court will not infer one by judicial decision.”
Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351 (Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “19 M.R.S.A. § 722(3) (1981 & Supp. 1993); Hebert v.”
Bryant v. Bryant, 411 A.2d 391 (Me. 1980). “He argues that 19 M.R.S.A. § 722 (Supp.1979) violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment in that only “the hus.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 722(2): 2 cases
Raymond v. Raymond, 480 A.2d 718 (Me. 1984). “" (Emphasis added) The denial of a prospective request for counsel fees made at the beginning of divorce litigation will not preclude the court from considering award of fees at the conclusion of the proceedings.”
Parker v. Parker, 598 A.2d 446 (Me. 1991).
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 722(3): 13 cases
Raymond v. Raymond, 480 A.2d 718 (Me. 1984). “" (Emphasis added) The denial of a prospective request for counsel fees made at the beginning of divorce litigation will not preclude the court from considering award of fees at the conclusion of the proceedings.”
Arey v. Arey, 651 A.2d 351 (Me. 1994). “19 M.R.S.A. § 722(3) (1981 & Supp. 1993); Hebert v.”
Rosen v. Rosen, 651 A.2d 335 (Me. 1994).
Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250 (Me. 1984).
Hebert v. Hebert, 475 A.2d 422 (Me. 1984).
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 722(A): 1 case
Davidson v. Davidson, 474 N.E.2d 1137 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). “1984); and Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. § 767.255 (1981), exclude property acquired by a spouse through gift, bequest, devise or descent from division at divorce.”
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.