Cloutier v. Cloutier
814 A.2d 979, 2003 ME 4, 2003 Me. LEXIS 9 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a family law matter, a trial court has the discretion to set aside a pretrial mediated agreement that has not been incorporated into a court order if enforcing the agreement would be inequitable, contrary to the best interests of the children, or manifestly unjust.
Facts:
- Lorenzo and Dawn Cloutier married in 1987 and had three children.
- Early in the marriage, they built a family home on land purchased with a $25,000 loan from Lorenzo’s father, Wilfred, for which they signed a promissory note.
- At the time of the divorce proceedings, Dawn earned approximately $20,400 annually, while Lorenzo earned about $38,667.
- The marital home, where the children had always lived, also contained an apartment that generated $125 per week in rental income.
- During court-mandated mediation, the Cloutiers signed a 'points of agreement' form stipulating that the family home would be sold and the proceeds used to satisfy certain debts.
- This mediation agreement was never presented to or approved by the court, and thus was not incorporated into a court order.
Procedural Posture:
- Dawn Cloutier filed a complaint for divorce against Lorenzo Cloutier in the Maine District Court (Lewiston).
- A case management officer issued an interim order granting Dawn primary residence of the children at the marital home.
- The parties participated in mediation and signed a 'points of agreement' document, which was not incorporated into a court order.
- At a subsequent pretrial conference, the court issued a pretrial order that did not list the disposition of the real estate as a disputed issue.
- At the divorce trial, Dawn requested that the court award her the home, contrary to the mediation agreement.
- The court, determining the issue was intertwined with other financial matters, reopened the disposition of the real estate for litigation, giving the parties over two months to prepare.
- Lorenzo objected to the court's decision to reopen the issue, but his objection was overruled.
- The trial court awarded the marital home to Dawn.
- The trial court denied Lorenzo's motion for further findings of fact.
- Lorenzo Cloutier, as appellant, appealed the divorce judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a trial court in a divorce proceeding set aside a mediated pretrial agreement that has not been incorporated into a court order and decide an issue, such as the disposition of marital property, contrary to that agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Saufley, C.J.
Yes. A trial court has the discretion to set aside a non-court-ordered pretrial agreement between parties to a divorce. The court reasoned that family law matters are distinct from general civil suits, as the court must exercise its authority in equity and act in the best interests of any children involved. A mediated agreement in a family matter does not become an enforceable court order until it is presented to and approved by the court. While courts should ordinarily honor such agreements to encourage mediation, they may set one aside after considering several factors, including whether enforcement would cause significant inequity, a substantial change in circumstances, or be detrimental to the children's best interests. Here, the court found it would be 'manifestly unjust' to enforce the agreement to sell the home because the equity was insufficient to pay off their debts and, most importantly, it would have a substantial detrimental effect on the children by removing them from their home and school district, particularly given Dawn's limited ability to afford alternative housing.
Analysis:
This case establishes that mediated agreements in family law are not legally enforceable contracts until formally approved by a court. It grants trial judges significant discretionary power to override such agreements to achieve an equitable outcome and protect the welfare of children. The decision provides a multi-factor framework for this judicial review, reinforcing the court's role as a guardian of fairness in divorce proceedings over the parties' private arrangements. This precedent may create uncertainty for parties relying on the finality of mediation but ensures that unjust or harmful agreements do not become binding.
