## Facts

- David T. Sewall and Pimonpan Saritvanich married in December 1993; Sewall filed for divorce in 1995.
- Sewall was president of the James W. Sewall Company, a long-running family business, and earned more than $100,000 per year.
- Sewall owned all common stock in the company and also had retirement and insurance accounts (including a 401(k) and life insurance).
- At the time of marriage, Sewall owned real property in Orono, Castine, and Brooklin, Maine.
- Before the marriage, Saritvanich owned a convenience store in California that she sold; she received payments of $382.26 per month on a note from that sale.
- At the time of marriage, Saritvanich owned a home in Old Town, Maine.
- During the marriage, marital funds were used to make improvements to the Orono property and to make some mortgage-related payments.
- After a hearing, the Bangor District Court entered a divorce judgment that valued the marital estate at approximately $597,000, consisting of: (1) $550,000 appreciation in Sewall Company stock, (2) $45,000 appreciation in Sewall’s 401(k), and (3) $2,000 appreciation in Sewall’s life insurance.
- The District Court valued Sewall’s nonmarital estate at approximately $5,664,200, including (among other items) the Orono and Castine properties and the premarital value of his company stock.
- The court valued Saritvanich’s nonmarital estate at about $34,000, including value in her Old Town home and other premarital holdings.
- The District Court ordered Sewall to pay Saritvanich $75,000 in three annual installments (with 15% interest from the date of judgment), to pay $6,577.82 toward her attorney’s fees, and to pay $20,000 to reduce the mortgage on her Old Town home.
- Saritvanich sought additional findings under M.R. Civ. P. 52; the District Court denied the request. The Superior Court affirmed, and Saritvanich appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the District Court erred by failing to treat as marital property the portion of appreciation in Sewall’s premarital Orono property that resulted from marital payments and improvements.
2. Whether the District Court erred in classifying the Castine property as entirely nonmarital.
3. Whether the District Court clearly erred in valuing the appreciation in Sewall’s Sewall Company stock.
4. Whether the District Court’s denial of Saritvanich’s Rule 52 motion required reversal.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to remand to the District Court.
- The court held that the District Court clearly erred by not allocating to the marital estate the appreciation in the Orono property attributable to marital contributions, and it directed reconsideration of the property division in light of a corrected classification.
- The court affirmed the District Court’s classification of the Castine property as nonmarital on the record presented.
- The court upheld the District Court’s valuation of the appreciation in the Sewall Company stock as supported by competent evidence, even though competing valuations were offered.
- The court concluded that denial of the Rule 52 request was not, by itself, reversible error, but the case still required remand because of the property-classification error.
- The court directed the District Court to reconsider related aspects of the judgment affected by the corrected property division, including spousal support issues tied to the revised distribution.

## Legal Principles

- Divorce courts must (1) identify marital and nonmarital property, (2) value the property, and (3) divide marital property equitably; errors at the classification step can require a new distribution analysis.
- Although premarital property is generally nonmarital, an increase in value during the marriage can be marital to the extent the increase is caused by marital payments, marital labor, or marital-funded improvements.
- The titled spouse bears the burden to show that an increase in value should remain nonmarital when marital funds or effort contributed to the asset.
- Trial courts have discretion to choose among competing, admissible valuation opinions; an appellate court will not disturb a valuation supported by competent evidence absent clear error.
- Findings must be sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review; a denial of additional findings is not reversible if the existing findings permit review, but a misclassification of significant property can still require remand.

## Conclusion

Sewall v. Saritvanich holds that when marital funds or efforts contribute to the increased value of a spouse’s premarital property, the resulting appreciation must be treated as marital and included in the equitable distribution analysis; because the trial court failed to do so for the Orono property, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated and remanded for a corrected classification and a reconsidered divorce judgment.


Sewall v. Saritvanich, 726 A.2d 224 (1999)