Wilner v. Wilner

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Wilner v. Wilner

500 A.2d 1025, 1985 Me. LEXIS 886

DecidedDecember 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 500 A.2d 1025 (Wilner v. Wilner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilner v. Wilner, 500 A.2d 1025, 1985 Me. LEXIS 886 (Me. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

The plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Superior Court (Androscoggin County) denying his motion for reduction of his monthly alimony payments. Plaintiff argues that his motion should have been granted because he has suffered a substantial loss in income. The court found that although the financial situation of the parties had changed, plaintiff retained “the capacity to make the previously ordered payment.” The decision to modify an alimony award rests within the Superior Court’s discretion. Smith v. Smith, 419 A.2d 1035, 1037 (Me.1980). “Absent a violation of some positive rule of law,” we will overturn that decision “only if it results in a plain and unmistakable injustice, so apparent that it is instantly visible without argument.” Id. at 1038. We find no patent injustice in the order of the Superior Court. The remaining arguments on appeal are without merit.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

The plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Superior Court (Androscoggin County) denying his motion for reduction of his monthly alimony payments. Plaintiff argues that his motion should have been granted because he has suffered a substantial loss in income. The court found that although the financial situation of the parties had changed, plaintiff retained “the capacity to make the previously ordered payment.” The decision to modify an alimony award rests within the Superior Court’s discretion. Smith v. Smith, 419 A.2d 1035, 1037 (Me.1980). “Absent a violation of some positive rule of law,” we will overturn that decision “only if it results in a plain and unmistakable injustice, so apparent that it is instantly visible without argument.” Id. at 1038. We find no patent injustice in the order of the Superior Court. The remaining arguments on appeal are without merit.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 A.2d 1025, 1985 Me. LEXIS 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilner-v-wilner-me-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack