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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A (2026)

Spousal support

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Statement by court.  An order granting, denying or modifying spousal support must state:  
A. The type or types of support, if support is awarded;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
B. The method or methods of payment, and the term and limitations imposed, if support is awarded;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
C. If the support awarded is not, in whole or in part, subject to future modification; and   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
D. The factors relied upon by the court in arriving at its decision to award or deny spousal support, if the proceeding was contested.   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
2.  Types of spousal support.  The court may, after consideration of all factors set forth in subsection 5, award or modify spousal support for one or more of the following reasons.  
A. General support may be awarded to provide financial assistance to a spouse with substantially less income potential than the other spouse so that both spouses can maintain a reasonable standard of living after the divorce.  
(1) There is a 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. There is also a rebuttable presumption that general support may not be awarded for a term exceeding 1/2 the length of the marriage if the parties were married for at least 10 years but not more than 20 years as of the date of the filing of the action for divorce.  
(2) If the court finds that a spousal support award based upon a presumption established by this paragraph would be inequitable or unjust, that finding is sufficient to rebut the applicable presumption.   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
B. Transitional support may be awarded to provide for a spouse's transitional needs, including, but not limited to:  
(1) Short-term needs resulting from financial dislocations associated with the dissolution of the marriage; or  
(2) Reentry or advancement in the work force, including, but not limited to, physical or emotional rehabilitation services, vocational training and education.   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
C. Reimbursement support may be awarded to achieve an equitable result in the overall dissolution of the parties' financial relationship in response to exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to:  
(1) Economic misconduct by a spouse;  
(2) Substantial contributions a spouse made towards the educational or occupational advancement of the other spouse during the marriage; and  
(3) Economic abuse by a spouse. For the purposes of this subparagraph, "economic abuse" has the same meaning as in section 4102, subsection 5.  
Reimbursement support may be awarded only if the court determines that the parties' financial circumstances do not permit the court to fully address equitable considerations through its distributive order pursuant to section 953.   [PL 2023, c. 646, Pt. C, §1 (AMD).]
D. Nominal support may be awarded to preserve the court's authority to grant spousal support in the future.   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
E. Interim support may be awarded to provide for a spouse's separate support during the pendency of an action for divorce or judicial separation.   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 2023, c. 646, Pt. C, §1 (AMD).]
3.  Methods of payment; term and limitations.  The order must state the method or methods of payment that the court determines just, including, but not limited to, lump-sum and installment payments. The order must also state the term of and any limitations on the award that the court determines just, including, but not limited to:  
A. A limit on any increases or decreases in the amount of support;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
B. A limit on any increases or decreases in the term of support;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
C. A limit on the method or methods of payment of support;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
D. A limit on the payment of support related to the remarriage of the payee; and   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
E. A limit on the payment of support related to cohabitation by the payee.   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
4.  Modification.  An award of spousal support issued before October 1, 2013 is subject to modification when it appears that justice requires unless and to the extent the order awarding or modifying spousal support expressly states that the award, in whole or in part, is not subject to future modification. An award of spousal support issued on or after October 1, 2013 is subject to modification when there is a substantial change in financial circumstances and it appears that justice requires.  
[PL 2019, c. 272, §1 (AMD).]
5.  Factors.  The court shall consider the following factors when determining an award of spousal support:  
A. The length of the marriage;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
B. The ability of each party to pay;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
C. The age of each party;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
D. The employment history and employment potential of each party;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
E. The income history and income potential of each party;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
F. The education and training of each party;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
G. The provisions for retirement and health insurance benefits of each party;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
H. The tax consequences of the division of marital property, including the tax consequences of the sale of the marital home, if applicable;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
I. The health and disabilities of each party;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
J. The tax consequences of a spousal support award;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
K. The contributions of either party as homemaker;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
L. The contributions of either party to the education or earning potential of the other party;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
M. Economic misconduct by either party resulting in the diminution of marital property or income;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
M-1. Economic abuse by a spouse. For the purposes of this paragraph, "economic abuse" has the same meaning as in section 4102, subsection 5;   [PL 2023, c. 646, Pt. C, §2 (AMD).]
N. The standard of living of the parties during the marriage;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
O. The ability of the party seeking support to become self-supporting within a reasonable period of time;   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
P. The effect of the following on a party's need for spousal support or a party's ability to pay spousal support:  
(1) Actual or potential income from marital or nonmarital property awarded or set apart to each party as part of the court's distributive order pursuant to section 953; and  
(2) Child support for the support of a minor child or children of the marriage pursuant to chapter 63; and   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
Q. Any other factors the court considers appropriate.   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 2023, c. 646, Pt. C, §2 (AMD).]
6.  Enforcement.  The court may use all necessary legal provisions to enforce its decrees.  
[PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
7.  Real estate and other property; life insurance and other security.  The court may order part of the obligated party's real estate or other property, as well as the rents, profits or income from real estate or other property, to be assigned and set out to the other party for life or for such other period determined to be just. The court may also order the obligated party to maintain life insurance or to otherwise provide security for the payment of spousal support in the event the obligation may survive the obligated party's death.  
[PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
8.  Cessation upon death of payee or payor.  An order awarding, denying or modifying spousal support may provide that the award survives the death of the payee or payor, or both. Unless otherwise stated in the order awarding spousal support, the obligation to make any payment pursuant to this section ceases upon the death of either the payee or the payor with respect to any payment not yet due and owing as of the date of death.  
[PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
9.  Effect of no award or termination of spousal support.  A final judgment that does not award spousal support forever precludes such an award in that action. The complete termination of a spousal support award pursuant to the terms of the award or a final post-judgment order forever precludes the reinstatement of spousal support in that action.  
[PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
10.  Application.  This section applies to:  
A. Orders granting or denying spousal support entered on or after September 1, 2000; and   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
B. The modification, termination and enforcement of orders granting spousal support entered on or after September 1, 2000.   [PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW).]
11.  Support while pending.  The trial court may make, modify or enforce an award of spousal support under this section while an action is pending, including while on appeal.  
[PL 2005, c. 594, §4 (NEW).]
12.  Cessation upon cohabitation. 
[PL 2019, c. 272, §2 (RP).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1999, c. 634, §3 (NEW). PL 2005, c. 594, §4 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 327, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 272, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 122, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 646, Pt. C, §§1, 2 (AMD).
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 108 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: James A. Ehret v. Deborah B. Ehret, 2016 ME 43 (Me. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
James A. Ehret v. Deborah B. Ehret, 2016 ME 43 (Me. 2016). · cites it 5× “This explanation should include, at a minimum, a discussion of how the court assessed Deborah’s earning capacity, and findings regarding the effect of the child support order and property distribution order on James’s ability to pay any award of spousal support.”
Corcoran v. Marie, 2011 ME 14 (Me. 2011). · cites it 18× “See 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A), (B) (2010). The agreement provided that Corcoran would pay Marie $2200 by June 2008, and that thereafter he would pay Marie "$160 per month or as needed to meet the deficit of her basic living expenses .”
Murphy v. Murphy, 2003 ME 17 (Me. 2003). · cites it 9× “19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A (2)(B). Moreover, in determining an award of alimony, the court is required to consider the factors listed in § 951-A (5), including the health of the parties.”
Daniel J. McLeod v. Louise M. Macul, 2016 ME 76 (Me. 2016). · cites it 7× “[¶ 14] The spousal support statute, 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A (2015), lists several factors that the court must consider in its support determination, including, inter alia, the income history and income potential of each party.”
Molly G. (Lachance) Jandreau v. Daniel L. Lachance, 2015 ME 66 (Me. 2015). · cites it 7× “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(1)(D) (2014). [¶ 17] Here, the court’s judgment cites four factors on which it relied in reaching its decision to deny Jandreau’s request for support: (1) its award to Jandreau of $230 in weekly child support, (2) its allocation of the dependency tax…”
Pettinelli v. Yost, 2007 ME 121 (Me. 2007). · cites it 5× “” 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A). 1 [¶ 13] The court has continuing jurisdiction to modify an award of spousal support when it appears that justice requires it.”
Coppola v. Coppola, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007). · cites it 7× “Unlike with child support, the trial court is not required to calculate spousal support based upon the parties’ gross income pursuant to 19-AM.R.S. § 951-A (2006). Rather, the statute mandates that the trial court consider seventeen different factors when determining an award of…”
Warner v. Warner, 2002 ME 156 (Me. 2002). · cites it 6× “2276 (proposed 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2)(C)). Maine Family Law Advisory Commission, Recommendation to the Maine Legislature, Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary, Regarding L.”
Hess v. Hess, 2007 ME 82 (Me. 2007). · cites it 8× “A trial court’s determination of spousal support pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A (2006) is reviewed with deference.”
Miele v. Miele, 2003 ME 113 (Me. 2003). · cites it 5× “Title 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2) lists five possible types of spousal support, including general support.”
Cynthia (Pray) Wood McKenna v. Thomas Pray, 2024 ME 58 (Me. 2024). · cites it 7× “” 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A). The court must consider multiple factors in determining whether to award spousal support, including each party’s “income history and income potential” and, especially relevant here, the effect of “[a]ctual or potential income from marital or…”
Carter v. Carter, 2006 ME 68 (Me. 2006). · cites it 6× “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A)(1) (2005). [¶ 20] Because Kim failed to file a timely motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, we infer that the court found any subsidiary facts essential to its ultimate findings.”
Show all 108 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(1) — 6 cases
Michael v. Finucan v. Laurel (Finucan) Williams, 2013 ME 75 (Me. 2013).
Torrey B. Sears v. Bobby J. Sears, 2023 ME 45 (Me. 2023).
Holt v. Watson, 2005 ME 33 (Me. 2005).
Ronald R. Bertin v. Susan L. Bertin, 2013 ME 70 (Me. 2013).
Pillsbury v. Pillsbury, 2007 ME 46 (Me. 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(1)(D) — 3 cases
Molly G. (Lachance) Jandreau v. Daniel L. Lachance, 2015 ME 66 (Me. 2015). “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(1)(D) (2014). [¶ 17] Here, the court’s judgment cites four factors on which it relied in reaching its decision to deny Jandreau’s request for support: (1) its award to Jandreau of $230 in weekly child support, (2) its allocation of the dependency tax…”
Mooar v. Greenleaf, 179 A.3d 307 (Me. 2018).
Ellis v. Ellis, 962 A.2d 328 (Me. 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(10) — 3 cases
Libby v. Libby, 2001 ME 130 (Me. 2001).
Julie Lothrop v. Doug Lothrop, 2016 ME 23 (Me. 2016).
Hanna v. Hildings, 799 A.2d 1243 (Me. 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(10)(B) — 1 case
Hanna v. Hildings, 799 A.2d 1243 (Me. 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(12) — 6 cases
Patricia Mae Voter v. Dexter R. Voter, 2015 ME 11 (Me. 2015).
David Sullivan v. Zoe (Sullivan) Rockwood, 2015 ME 119 (Me. 2015).
Amero v. Amero, 149 A.3d 535 (Me. 2016).
Julie Lothrop v. Doug Lothrop, 2016 ME 23 (Me. 2016).
Mark A. Amero v. Maria C. Amero, 2016 ME 150 (Me. 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(2) — 14 cases
Murphy v. Murphy, 2003 ME 17 (Me. 2003). “19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A (2)(B). Moreover, in determining an award of alimony, the court is required to consider the factors listed in § 951-A (5), including the health of the parties.”
Miele v. Miele, 2003 ME 113 (Me. 2003). “Title 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2) lists five possible types of spousal support, including general support.”
Christine v. Violette v. Randy R. Violette, 2015 ME 97 (Me. 2015).
Miliano v. Miliano, 50 A.3d 534 (Me. 2012).
Warren v. Warren, 2005 ME 9 (Me. 2005).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(2)(A) — 27 cases
Corcoran v. Marie, 2011 ME 14 (Me. 2011). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A), (B) (2010). The agreement provided that Corcoran would pay Marie $2200 by June 2008, and that thereafter he would pay Marie "$160 per month or as needed to meet the deficit of her basic living expenses .”
Catherine E. Brochu v. Richard A. McLeod, 2016 ME 146 (Me. 2016).
Michael v. Finucan v. Laurel (Finucan) Williams, 2013 ME 75 (Me. 2013).
Hurley v. Hurley, 2007 ME 65 (Me. 2007).
Cynthia (Pray) Wood McKenna v. Thomas Pray, 2024 ME 58 (Me. 2024). “” 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A). The court must consider multiple factors in determining whether to award spousal support, including each party’s “income history and income potential” and, especially relevant here, the effect of “[a]ctual or potential income from marital or…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(2)(A)(1) — 5 cases
Carter v. Carter, 2006 ME 68 (Me. 2006). “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A)(1) (2005). [¶ 20] Because Kim failed to file a timely motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, we infer that the court found any subsidiary facts essential to its ultimate findings.”
Kevin Dube v. Lisa Dube, 2016 ME 15 (Me. 2016).
McAllister v. McAllister, 2011 ME 69 (Me. 2011).
Corcoran v. Marie, 2011 ME 14 (Me. 2011). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A), (B) (2010). The agreement provided that Corcoran would pay Marie $2200 by June 2008, and that thereafter he would pay Marie "$160 per month or as needed to meet the deficit of her basic living expenses .”
Pillsbury v. Pillsbury, 2007 ME 46 (Me. 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(2)(A)(2) — 2 cases
Payne v. Payne, 2006 ME 73 (Me. 2006).
Pillsbury v. Pillsbury, 2007 ME 46 (Me. 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(2)(A)(2006) — 1 case
Pettinelli v. Yost, 2007 ME 121 (Me. 2007). “” 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A). 1 [¶ 13] The court has continuing jurisdiction to modify an award of spousal support when it appears that justice requires it.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(2)(B) — 4 cases
Pettinelli v. Yost, 2007 ME 121 (Me. 2007). “” 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A). 1 [¶ 13] The court has continuing jurisdiction to modify an award of spousal support when it appears that justice requires it.”
Christine v. Violette v. Randy R. Violette, 2015 ME 97 (Me. 2015).
Murphy v. Murphy, 2003 ME 17 (Me. 2003). “19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A (2)(B). Moreover, in determining an award of alimony, the court is required to consider the factors listed in § 951-A (5), including the health of the parties.”
Nixon v. Nixon, 957 A.2d 101 (Me. 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(2)(C) — 7 cases
Libby v. Libby, 2001 ME 130 (Me. 2001).
Warner v. Warner, 2002 ME 156 (Me. 2002). “2276 (proposed 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2)(C)). Maine Family Law Advisory Commission, Recommendation to the Maine Legislature, Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary, Regarding L.”
Jennifer A. Young v. Michael S. Young, 2015 ME 89 (Me. 2015).
Warren v. Warren, 2005 ME 9 (Me. 2005).
Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 2006 ME 140 (Me. 2006).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(2)(C)(1) — 1 case
Holt v. Watson, 2005 ME 33 (Me. 2005).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(2)(E) — 1 case
Real v. Real, 2010 ME 92 (Me. 2010).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(3) — 3 cases
Hess v. Hess, 2007 ME 82 (Me. 2007). “A trial court’s determination of spousal support pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A (2006) is reviewed with deference.”
In Re Est. of Ricci, 2003 ME 84 (Me. 2003).
Durkin v. Durkin, 203 A.3d 812 (Me. 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(3)(A) — 1 case
Warner v. Warner, 2002 ME 156 (Me. 2002). “2276 (proposed 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2)(C)). Maine Family Law Advisory Commission, Recommendation to the Maine Legislature, Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary, Regarding L.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(3)(D)(E) — 1 case
Miele v. Miele, 2003 ME 113 (Me. 2003). “Title 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2) lists five possible types of spousal support, including general support.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(3)(E) — 1 case
Wandishin v. Wandishin, 2009 ME 73 (Me. 2009).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(4) — 27 cases
Corcoran v. Marie, 2011 ME 14 (Me. 2011). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A), (B) (2010). The agreement provided that Corcoran would pay Marie $2200 by June 2008, and that thereafter he would pay Marie "$160 per month or as needed to meet the deficit of her basic living expenses .”
Daniel J. McLeod v. Louise M. Macul, 2016 ME 76 (Me. 2016). “[¶ 14] The spousal support statute, 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A (2015), lists several factors that the court must consider in its support determination, including, inter alia, the income history and income potential of each party.”
Diane L. Charette v. Dale N. Charette, 2013 ME 4 (Me. 2013).
Ellis v. Ellis, 962 A.2d 328 (Me. 2008).
McAllister v. McAllister, 2011 ME 69 (Me. 2011).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5) — 41 cases
James A. Ehret v. Deborah B. Ehret, 2016 ME 43 (Me. 2016). “This explanation should include, at a minimum, a discussion of how the court assessed Deborah’s earning capacity, and findings regarding the effect of the child support order and property distribution order on James’s ability to pay any award of spousal support.”
Haskell v. Haskell, 160 A.3d 1176 (Me. 2017).
Corcoran v. Marie, 2011 ME 14 (Me. 2011). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A), (B) (2010). The agreement provided that Corcoran would pay Marie $2200 by June 2008, and that thereafter he would pay Marie "$160 per month or as needed to meet the deficit of her basic living expenses .”
Molly G. (Lachance) Jandreau v. Daniel L. Lachance, 2015 ME 66 (Me. 2015). “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(1)(D) (2014). [¶ 17] Here, the court’s judgment cites four factors on which it relied in reaching its decision to deny Jandreau’s request for support: (1) its award to Jandreau of $230 in weekly child support, (2) its allocation of the dependency tax…”
Michelle L. (George) Sullivan v. William A. George, 2018 ME 115 (Me. 2018).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(0) — 2 cases
Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 2006 ME 140 (Me. 2006).
Potter v. Potter, 2007 ME 95 (Me. 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(A) — 8 cases
Miele v. Miele, 2003 ME 113 (Me. 2003). “Title 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2) lists five possible types of spousal support, including general support.”
Corcoran v. Marie, 2011 ME 14 (Me. 2011). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A), (B) (2010). The agreement provided that Corcoran would pay Marie $2200 by June 2008, and that thereafter he would pay Marie "$160 per month or as needed to meet the deficit of her basic living expenses .”
Christine v. Violette v. Randy R. Violette, 2015 ME 97 (Me. 2015).
Molly G. (Lachance) Jandreau v. Daniel L. Lachance, 2015 ME 66 (Me. 2015). “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(1)(D) (2014). [¶ 17] Here, the court’s judgment cites four factors on which it relied in reaching its decision to deny Jandreau’s request for support: (1) its award to Jandreau of $230 in weekly child support, (2) its allocation of the dependency tax…”
Carter v. Carter, 2006 ME 68 (Me. 2006). “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A)(1) (2005). [¶ 20] Because Kim failed to file a timely motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, we infer that the court found any subsidiary facts essential to its ultimate findings.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(B) — 14 cases
James A. Ehret v. Deborah B. Ehret, 2016 ME 43 (Me. 2016). “This explanation should include, at a minimum, a discussion of how the court assessed Deborah’s earning capacity, and findings regarding the effect of the child support order and property distribution order on James’s ability to pay any award of spousal support.”
Wrenn v. Lewis, 2003 ME 29 (Me. 2003).
Kevin Dube v. Lisa Dube, 2016 ME 15 (Me. 2016).
Miele v. Miele, 2003 ME 113 (Me. 2003). “Title 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2) lists five possible types of spousal support, including general support.”
Durkin v. Durkin, 203 A.3d 812 (Me. 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(D) — 3 cases
Daniel J. McLeod v. Louise M. Macul, 2016 ME 76 (Me. 2016). “[¶ 14] The spousal support statute, 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A (2015), lists several factors that the court must consider in its support determination, including, inter alia, the income history and income potential of each party.”
Holt v. Watson, 2005 ME 33 (Me. 2005).
Wanner v. Wanner, 12 A.3d 58 (Me. 2011).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(E) — 10 cases
Warner v. Warner, 2002 ME 156 (Me. 2002). “2276 (proposed 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2)(C)). Maine Family Law Advisory Commission, Recommendation to the Maine Legislature, Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary, Regarding L.”
Cynthia (Pray) Wood McKenna v. Thomas Pray, 2024 ME 58 (Me. 2024). “” 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A). The court must consider multiple factors in determining whether to award spousal support, including each party’s “income history and income potential” and, especially relevant here, the effect of “[a]ctual or potential income from marital or…”
Daniel J. McLeod v. Louise M. Macul, 2016 ME 76 (Me. 2016). “[¶ 14] The spousal support statute, 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A (2015), lists several factors that the court must consider in its support determination, including, inter alia, the income history and income potential of each party.”
Molly G. (Lachance) Jandreau v. Daniel L. Lachance, 2015 ME 66 (Me. 2015). “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(1)(D) (2014). [¶ 17] Here, the court’s judgment cites four factors on which it relied in reaching its decision to deny Jandreau’s request for support: (1) its award to Jandreau of $230 in weekly child support, (2) its allocation of the dependency tax…”
Coppola v. Coppola, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007). “Unlike with child support, the trial court is not required to calculate spousal support based upon the parties’ gross income pursuant to 19-AM.R.S. § 951-A (2006). Rather, the statute mandates that the trial court consider seventeen different factors when determining an award of…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(G) — 3 cases
Laqualia v. Laqualia, 2011 ME 114 (Me. 2011).
Hess v. Hess, 2007 ME 82 (Me. 2007). “A trial court’s determination of spousal support pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A (2006) is reviewed with deference.”
Payne v. Payne, 2008 ME 35 (Me. 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(J) — 1 case
Coppola v. Coppola, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007). “Unlike with child support, the trial court is not required to calculate spousal support based upon the parties’ gross income pursuant to 19-AM.R.S. § 951-A (2006). Rather, the statute mandates that the trial court consider seventeen different factors when determining an award of…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(M) — 2 cases
Carter v. Carter, 2006 ME 68 (Me. 2006). “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A)(1) (2005). [¶ 20] Because Kim failed to file a timely motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, we infer that the court found any subsidiary facts essential to its ultimate findings.”
Dunn v. Cometa (Me. Super. Ct 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(N) — 3 cases
Ackerman v. Yates, 2004 ME 56 (Me. 2004).
Carter v. Carter, 2006 ME 68 (Me. 2006). “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A)(1) (2005). [¶ 20] Because Kim failed to file a timely motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, we infer that the court found any subsidiary facts essential to its ultimate findings.”
Harmon v. Harmon, 2009 ME 2 (Me. 2009).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(P)(1) — 3 cases
James A. Ehret v. Deborah B. Ehret, 2016 ME 43 (Me. 2016). “This explanation should include, at a minimum, a discussion of how the court assessed Deborah’s earning capacity, and findings regarding the effect of the child support order and property distribution order on James’s ability to pay any award of spousal support.”
Selcuk Karamanoglu v. Catherine (Karamanoglu) Gourlaouen, 2016 ME 86 (Me. 2016).
Cynthia (Pray) Wood McKenna v. Thomas Pray, 2024 ME 58 (Me. 2024). “” 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A). The court must consider multiple factors in determining whether to award spousal support, including each party’s “income history and income potential” and, especially relevant here, the effect of “[a]ctual or potential income from marital or…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(P)(2) — 3 cases
Coppola v. Coppola, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007). “Unlike with child support, the trial court is not required to calculate spousal support based upon the parties’ gross income pursuant to 19-AM.R.S. § 951-A (2006). Rather, the statute mandates that the trial court consider seventeen different factors when determining an award of…”
Molly G. (Lachance) Jandreau v. Daniel L. Lachance, 2015 ME 66 (Me. 2015). “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(1)(D) (2014). [¶ 17] Here, the court’s judgment cites four factors on which it relied in reaching its decision to deny Jandreau’s request for support: (1) its award to Jandreau of $230 in weekly child support, (2) its allocation of the dependency tax…”
Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 2006 ME 140 (Me. 2006).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(5)(Q) — 4 cases
Pettinelli v. Yost, 2007 ME 121 (Me. 2007). “” 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A). 1 [¶ 13] The court has continuing jurisdiction to modify an award of spousal support when it appears that justice requires it.”
Molly G. (Lachance) Jandreau v. Daniel L. Lachance, 2015 ME 66 (Me. 2015). “19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(1)(D) (2014). [¶ 17] Here, the court’s judgment cites four factors on which it relied in reaching its decision to deny Jandreau’s request for support: (1) its award to Jandreau of $230 in weekly child support, (2) its allocation of the dependency tax…”
Matthew W. Buck v. Lisa H. Buck, 2015 ME 33 (Me. 2015).
Harmon v. Harmon, 2009 ME 2 (Me. 2009).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(6) — 2 cases
Donald G. Durkin v. Joyce L. Durkin, 2019 ME 32 (Me. 2019).
Durkin v. Durkin, 203 A.3d 812 (Me. 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(7) — 6 cases
Efstathiou v. Aspinquid, Inc., 956 A.2d 110 (Me. 2008).
In Re Marriage of Walker, 899 N.E.2d 1097 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
Miliano v. Miliano, 50 A.3d 534 (Me. 2012).
Warner v. Warner, 2002 ME 156 (Me. 2002). “2276 (proposed 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2)(C)). Maine Family Law Advisory Commission, Recommendation to the Maine Legislature, Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary, Regarding L.”
Theberge v. Theberge, 2010 ME 132 (Me. 2010).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(8) — 2 cases
Hess v. Hess, 2007 ME 82 (Me. 2007). “A trial court’s determination of spousal support pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A (2006) is reviewed with deference.”
Theberge v. Theberge, 2010 ME 132 (Me. 2010).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(9) — 2 cases
Ronald R. Bertin v. Susan L. Bertin, 2013 ME 70 (Me. 2013).
Kimberly A. Quinty v. Steven W. Johnson, 2017 ME 117 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(l) — 1 case
Harper v. Harper (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 951-A(s) — 1 case
Harper v. Harper (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
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.