Harvey v. Robinson
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
665 A.2d 215 (1995)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Charles Harvey and Cheryl Robinson were married, had two daughters, and divorced. In the original divorce judgment, Harvey was ordered to pay $345 in child support on a biweekly basis. That amount was determined on the basis of Harvey’s annual income of $35,600, which derived mainly from his full-time civilian position with the National Guard. A few years later, Harvey quit his job in anticipation of an involuntary retirement. Harvey decided to pursue his dream of attending college and ultimately medical school. Harvey continued working in part-time positions, resulting in a gross income of $13,840. Harvey moved to reduce his child-support obligation due to the change in his earning capacity. At this point, Harvey was $3,400 behind on child-support payments, and Robinson was making $21,000 per year. Robinson testified that Harvey’s failure to make timely payments had resulted in their daughters being deprived of winter clothes. The district court determined that Harvey’s decision to quit his job and pursue an education was made in good faith. The court reduced Harvey’s child-support obligation to $80 per week, to be increased by $6 on his younger daughter’s twelfth birthday. Robinson appealed. The superior court affirmed the district court’s decision. Robinson again appealed. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lipez, J.)
Dissent (Dana, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.