Sewall v. Saritvanich
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
726 A.2d 224 (1999)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Sewall (plaintiff) and Saritvanich (defendant) were married in December 1993, and Sewall filed for divorce in 1995. During the divorce proceedings, the evidence showed Sewall was president of a family business, earning more than $100,000 a year and owning all common stock in the company. Saritvanich presented evidence that she owned a store before the marriage that she sold before her marriage to Sewall. Sewall owned three properties at the time of the marriage, and Saritvanich owned one property at the time of the marriage. The trial court entered a divorce judgment after a hearing. The trial court valued the marital estate at $597,000: $550,000 appreciation in the Sewall Company, $45,000 appreciation in Sewall’s 401K plan, and $2,000 in Sewall’s life insurance. The trial court valued Sewall’s nonmarital estate at $5,664,200: $184,000 for the Orono property, $250,000 for the Castine property, $140,000 in retirement and insurance accounts, and $5.1 million on common stock in the Sewall Company. The trial court valued Saritvanich’s nonmarital estate at $34,000 in her home and her preexisting shares in shares. The trial court ordered Sewall to pay Saritvanich $75,000 in three annual payments and to pay for her attorneys. Saritvanich appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dana, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.