Goldfinger v. Dubinsky

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: March 22, 2016
• Docket: CUMcv-15-72
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

v,µ I ( (

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO . CUMSC-CV-15-72

ALICER. GOLDFINGER,

Plaintiff, STATE OF MAINc Cumbafand, st, Clerk's Office V. MAR 22 2016 DAVID A. DUBINSKY,

Defendant. RECEIVED ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant David A. Dubinsky has moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff Alice R.

Goldfinger's claims against him for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment,

fraud on the court, and PL!nitive damages . Oral argument was held on March 21, 2016.

Based on the entire record, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

I. Background

P laintiff Alice R. Goldfinger and D efendant David A. Dubinsky were previously married

and are the parents of two children. (D ef S.M.F. Ex. E at 1.) The parties were divorced on

June 16, 2009, docket number PORDC-FM-08-698 . (Def Supp. S.M.F. ~ l ; Pl. Opp. S.M.F. ~ I 1.) Pursuant to the divorce judgment, Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff $186.00 per

week in child support based upon his imputed income. (Def S.M.F. Ex. A at 9.) Because

Defendant claimed he was not currently employed at the time of the divorce proceedings,

Defendant's child support obligation was suspended until July 2011. (Id. at 10.) The divorce

judgment required the parties exchange copies of their tax returns or affidavits concerning

their current income each year. (Id.) Also because Defendant claimed he was not currently

employed, the divo rce judgment also ordered Plaintiff to pay spousal support to Defendant in

the amount of $500.00 per month until July 2011. (Id. at 14.)

1 ( (

Following the divorce judgment, the parties have been involved in numerous post-

judgment proceedings regarding child support and other issues . (Def. Supp. S.M.F . ~ 4 ; Pl.

Opp. S.M .F . ~ 4.)

The most recent post-judgment proceeding was a hearing on a motion by the Maine

Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHS" ) to modify the child support order held

on October 30, 2014. (Id. ~ 8 .) During the hearing, Defendant admitted under oath he had

fabricated financial information related t o calculation of child support from 2009 to 2013. (Id.

~ 10.) Defendant admitted to falsifying tax returns and W2 forms to misrepresent and conceal ' his actual employment and income. (Id. ~~ 11-13 .)

The family law magistrate issued a post-judgment order on December 3, 20 14. (Def.

S.M.F . Ex . E at 3.) Based on Defendant's admission that he had fabricated financial

information, the family law magistrate found Defendant's testimony not credible. (Id. ) The

family law magistrate determined that Defendant was under-employed and imputed Defendant

an income of $153,180.00 per year for the purpose of calculating child support. (Id. ) The family

law magistrate also denied Defendant's request for a downward deviation in child support

because of his admission. (Id. ) Rather, the family law magistrate found that an upward

deviation was appropriate because of Defendant's failure to properly disclose his actual income,

among other reasons . (Id.)

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant on February 26, 2015 . After an extension

of time, Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim on April 10, 2015. Plaintiffs motion for

leave to filed an amended complaint was granted on May 26, 2015 . Defendant filed an amended

answer on June 11, 201 5 .

Defendant filed his motion for summary judgment along with a supporting statement of

material facts an d exhibits on September 22, 2015. After an extension of time, Plaintiff filed an ( (

opposition to Defendant' s motion along with opposing and additional statements of material

facts and exhibits on October 29, 20 15. After multiple extensions of time, Defendant's filed a

r eply to Plaintiffs opposition on F ebruary 19, 2016. 1

II. Analysis

D efendan t asserts he is entitled to summary judgment on three grounds. First, he is

entitled to summary judgment because this co urt lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs claims. (Def. Mot. Summ. J. 6. ) Second, he is entitled to summary judgment on his

affirmative defense of res judicata. (Id. at 9); see M .R. Civ. P . 8(c). Lastly, he is entitled to

summary judgment because Plaintiffs complaint fails to state any independent tort claims not

precluded by resjudicata. (Id. at 11.)

A. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate if, based on the parties' statements of material fact

and the cited record, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled

to judgment as a matter ofl aw . M .R. Civ. P . 56(c); Dyer v. Dep't of T ransp., 2008 ME 106, ~ 14,

95 1 A.2d 821. "A material fact is one that can affect the outcome of the case. A genuine issue of

material fact exists when the [fact find er] must choose between competing versions of the

truth." Dyer, 2008 M E 106, ~ 14, 95 1 A.2d 821 (internal citation and quotation marks

omitted). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews the evidence in

the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. If the moving party's motion for

summary judgment is properly supported, the burden shifts to the non-movmg party to

r espond with specific fac t s indicating a genuine issue for trial in order to avoid summary

judg ment. M.R. Civ. P . 56(e). "To withstand a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff

must es tablish a prima facie case for each element of their cause of action." Watt v. UnzFirst

1 Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiffs additional statement of material facts until the day of oral argument. Most of the Plaintiffs additional facts were admitted for the purposes of (

Corp., 2009 ME 47, ~ 21, 969 A.2d 897 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). If a

plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence on the essential elements, then the defendant is

entitled to a summary judgment. Id.

Regarding Defendant's first two grounds for summary judgment, whether a court has

subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law for the cour t. Windham Land Tr. v. Jejfords,

2009 ME 29, ~ 19, 967 A.2d 690. Additionally, the effect of a prior judgment on a present

action and whether the doctrine of res judicata applies is also a question of law for the court. ·

State v. Thompson, 2008 ME 166, ~ 8, 9 5 8 A.2d 887 . Summary judgment is an appropriate

device for isolating such dispositive questions oflaw. Magno v. Town ofFreeport, 486 A.2d 1S7,

141 (Me. 1985 ).

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs claims are merely efforts to seek additional child

support and spousal support. (Def. Mot. Summ. J. 7.) Plaintiff concedes that she "is not

claiming any out-of-pocket expenses, lost wages, salary, or compensation. H er damages consist

of the spousal support she paid and child support she would have been entitled to but did not

receive due to Defendant's misrepresentations." (Def. Supp. S.M.F. ~ 2S; Pl. Opp. S.M.F. ~ 2S. )

According to Defendant, because Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the amount of

spousal support she paid and the amount of child support she would been have entitled to,

Plaintiffs claims are, in essence, a post-judgment motion for modification of the divorce

judgment and support order within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court. (Def. Mot.

Summ. J. 6-9. ) Thus, according to Defendant, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs claims. (Id. )

The District Cour t has exclusive jurisdiction over all domestic relations actions. 19-A

M .R.S. § lOS. Furthermore, the Family Division of the District Court has exclusive

4 ( (

jurisdiction over all family matters, including all actions regarding divorce, spousal support,

and child support. 4 M.R.S. § 18S; 19-A M .R.S. §§ 901 -908 (divorce); 19-A M.R.S. §§ 951-54

(spousal support); 19-A M .R.S. §§ 2001-1 2 (child support).

However, the Family Division of the District Court has no ability to address or

authority to grant relief for many of the misrepresentations alleged in Plaintiffs complaint. In

support of her fraud claims, Plaintiff asserts, inter alia, follow ing: that Defendant gave false

testimony about his employment and income from 2005 through 2008 at the May 2009 divorce

hearing; that Defendant made repeated false representations regarding his employment and

income in a child support affidavits dated July 2, 2008, February 2, 2010, April 19, 20 10,

November 5, 2013, and February 24, 20 14; that Defendant made false representations

regarding his employment and income in pleadings submitted to the court on March 18, 2010,

and May 4, 2010; that Defendant provided Plaintiff with false tax returns for the years of 2009

through 2012; and, that Defendant gave false testimony about his employment and income

during a hearing on January 29, 2014. (Pl. Add'l S.M .F. ~ ~ 12-S S.)

The Family Division of the District Court has no ability to litigate claims based on

these allegations . Though parties may bring post-judgment motions to modify child support

orders at any time, child support orders may be modified retroactively only to the date that

notice of the motion for modification was served upon the opposing party. 19-A M .R.S. §

2009( 1), (2). Therefore, a motion to modify Defendant's child support order would not address

nor compensate Plaintiff for Defendant's alleged past misrepresentations about his income.

Nor can the Family Division of the District Court relieve Plaintiff of the original

divorce judgment and child support order based on Defendant's fraud. Under Maine Rul e of

Civil Procedure 60(b), the court may relieve a party from a j udgment or an order that was the

result of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party. M .R. Civ. P.

5 ( (

60(b)(3). H owever, a motion fo r relief from a judgment or order based on fraud must be

brought within one year from the entry of the j udgmen t or order. M .R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Ther efore, because the divorce judgment and the initial child support order in this present

action were iss ued in June 2009, Family Division of the District Court cannot relieve Plaintiff

of the original divorce judgment and child support or der under Rule 60(b).2

Additionally, some of the relief sought by Plaintiff is unavailable in the Family Division

of the District Court. Specifically, punitive damages are not available in the F amily Division of

the District Court for actions regarding spousal or child support. See 19-A M .R.S. § 95 1-A

(governing the types of spousal support that may be awarded); 19-A M .R.S. § 2006 (governing

awards for child support); see also H enriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 11 35, 1140 (Me. 1993) (stating

divorce provides no compensatory relief and spousal support is not intended to compensate for

past deeds ).

Furthermore, punitive damages may only be awarded for tortious conduct and only if

court finds that the plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the tortfeasor

acted with malice, findings which the Family Division of the District Court does not make in

determining spousal or child support. L aux v. H arrington, 20 12 ME 18, ~ 35, 38 A.3d 318

(citation omitted); see 19-A M .R.S. §§ 95 1-A, 2006; 4 M.R.S. § 183. Thus, at least some of the

r elief sought by Plaintiff is un available in the Family Division of the District Court.

It may well be that some of the Plaintiffs claimed damages are unavailable in this case

because they either were awarded or should have been so ught, in the Family Division, but the

possibility that some of her claims may be precluded does not justify precluding the claims that

clearly are outside the jurisdiction of the Family Division.

2 Furthermore, Rul e 60(b) does not prevent the court from enter taini ng independent actions for fraud and mis representation . Sargent v. Sargent, 622 A.2d 721 , 722 n. 2 (Me. 1993 ).

6 ( (

Because the Family Division of the District Court has no ability to adjudicate many of

Plaintiffs claims and because Plaintiffs complaint seeks punitive damages, Plaintiffs claim are

not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court. Therefore, this court has subject

matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaint. 4 M .R.S. § 105.

B. R es Judicata

N ext, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of resjudicata

because Plaintiffs claims merely seek to relitigate issues that were adj udicated in the original

2009 divorce action and subsequent District Court hearings . (Def. Mot. Summ. J . 9-11. )

Defendant also asserts that even if the fraud exception to res judicata applies to the 2009 divorce

judgment and prior child support orders, Defendant's fraudulent conduct was fully litigated

during the October 30, 20 14 hearing before a family law magistrate and fully addressed in the

December 3, 2014 post-judgment order. (Def. Reply to Pl. Opp'n to Def. Mot. Summ. J. 2.)

Thus, according to Defendant, the December 3, 2014 post-judgment order precludes Plaintiffs

claims for fraud. (Id. )

"The doctr ine of res judicata is a court-made collection of rules designed to ensure that

the same matter will not be litigated more than once. The doctrine has developed two separate

components, issue preclusion and claim preclusion." Macomb er v. Macquinn- Tweedie, 2003 ME

121 , ~ 22, 834 A.2d 13 1 (internal citation omitted). "Claim preclusion bars relitigation if (1)

the same parties or their privies are involved in both actions; (2) a valid final judgment was

entered in the prior action; and (3) the matters presented for decision in the second action were,

or might have been litigated in the first action." Id. (internal citation omitted). However, the

court has recognized a fraud exception to the doctrine of res judicata. Sargent v. Sargent, 622

A.2d 721, 723 (Me. 1993). A j udgment obtained by fraud may not be the basis for the

application of doctrine of res judicata. Id.

7 ( (

First, the 2009 divorce judgment and subsequent orders modifying child support do not

bar Plaintiffs claims. In support of her opposition to Defendant's motion, Plaintiff asserts that

the 200 9 divorce judgment and the subsequent orders were the result of fraud and

misrepresentation by the Defendant. (Pl. Add'l S.M.F. ~~ 12-38. ) Defendant admitted to

some these misrepresentations during October 30, 2014 hearing. (Def. Supp. S.M.F. ~~ 8-13. )

Therefore, because the 2009 divorce judgment and subsequent orders modifying child support

were the r esult of fraud , they have no resj udicata effect and do not preclude Plaintiffs claims.

Second, the December 3, 2014 order modifying child support also does not preclude

Plaintiffs present claims. Foremost, though Defendant did admit to certain false

representations at the October 30, 2014 hearing, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's testimony at

the hearing was still fraudulent , and therefore, the December 3, 2014, also has no res judicata

effect. (Pl. Opp'n to Def. Mot. Summ. J. 7.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's testimony about

his the length of his employment at National Veterinary Association and his compensation

were fals e, that his testimony about the amount of unemployment benefits he received in 2013

was false, and that Defendant's testimony that he did not work for, nor receive any income

from, Aero in 2011 or 2012 was also false. (Pl. Add'l S.M.F . ~ ~ 43 - 62. ) Thus, there is at least a

genuine issue of fact whether the December 3, 2014 post-judgment order was also the product

of fraud and misrepresentation.

Additionally, the December 3 , 2014 post-judgment order has no preclusive effect

because the family law magistrate did not, and could not have,_fully adjudicate Plaintiffs claims

for fraud. Though the family law magistrate did consider Defendant's misrepresentations in

determining whether a downwar d or upward deviation from the child support guidelines was

appropriate, the famil y law magistrate's order ultimately r ested on the magistrate's finding that

the Defendant had the ability to pay the increased amount of child support going forward . (

(Def Supp. S.M.F. Ex. E at 3. ) The family law magistrate's order did not seek to remedy

Defendant's prior misrepresentations. Further, in order to adjudicate Plaintiffs fraudulent

misrepresentation claim, the family law magistrate would have to determine whether the

Plaintiff had proven by clear and convincing evidence the following: (1 ) that the Defendant

made a false representation, (2) of material fact, (3) with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless

disregard of its truth or falsity, (4) for the purpose of inducing reliance, (5) which the plaintiff

justifiably relied to their detriment. Me. Eye Care Assocs., P.A. v. Gorman, 2008 ME 36, ~ 12,

942 A.2d 707 . The family law magistrate does not have the authority to make such

determinations. 4 M.R.S. § 183. Thus, the December 4, 2014 post-judgment order has no

preclusive effect on Plaintiffs fraud claims .

Therefore, Plaintiffs claims are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

C. Independent Tort Claims

Lastly, Defendant asserts that, because Plaintiff only seeks damages for the amount of

spousal support she paid and the amount of child support she would have been entitled to,

Plaintiffs complaint fail to assert any independent claims not precluded by the doctrine of res

judicata. (Def Mot. Summ. J. 11-13. )

As discussed above, the court has determined that Plaintiffs fraud claims are not barred

by the doctrine of res judicata and that Plaintiff may bring claims for fraud seeking damages for

the amount of spousal support she paid and the amount of child support she would have been

entitled to. Therefore, the fact that Plaintiffs complaint does not assert any additional tort

claims is not relevant and does not warrant summary judgment.

III. Conclusion

Based on the entirety of the record, the court concludes that Plaintiffs claims for fraud

are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court. Therefore, this court has

9 / I (

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaint. The court also concludes that Plaintiffs claims are not

barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS:

Defendant David A. Dubinsky's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Pursuant to M .R. Civ. P . 79(a), the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this Order by

reference in the docket.

Dated March 22, 2016 A.M. Horton Justice, Superior Court