Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lentz v. Lentz

Supreme Court of Maine

June 1, 2017

MIKA H. LENTZ
v.
NATHANIEL A. LENTZ

          Submitted On Briefs: April 27, 2017

         Reporter of Decisions

          Henry I. Shanoski, Esq., Henry I. Shanoski, LLC, Portland, for appellant Nathaniel A. Lentz

          David J. Bobrow, Esq., Bedard and Bobrow, PC, Eliot, for appellee Mika H. Lentz

          Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

          ALEXANDER, J.

         [¶1] Nathaniel A. Lentz appeals from the entry of a divorce judgment in the District Court (Portland, Darvin, J.) on a complaint filed by Mika H. Lentz and from a sanctions order (Eggert, J.). Nathaniel argues that the motion court abused its discretion when it sanctioned him for disregarding his discovery obligations, which, he alleges, resulted in an unjust division of property after the divorce hearing. Mika filed a motion for sanctions with us contending that Nathaniels filings on appeal violate the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure. We affirm the judgment and decline to issue sanctions.

         I. CASE HISTORY

         [¶2] Nathaniel and Mika were married in August 2002. Shortly before the marriage, Nathaniel partnered with his mother to form Timshel, LLC, which owns rental property located on Vesper Street in Portland.

         [¶3] On May 26, 2015, Mika filed a complaint for divorce in the District Court. After several pretrial motions, hearings, and a mediation session, a family law magistrate (Cadwallader, M.) held a status conference on September 15, 2015, and noted in an order that the parties planned to engage in discovery regarding the business entity and that "[Nathaniel] believes that there is a marital aspect in [its] increased value." Two weeks later, Mika served Nathaniel with interrogatories and a request to produce documents.

         [¶4] On October 14, 2015, Nathaniel provided Mika with an accounting of mortgage payments made by Timshel, LLC, from August 2002 to May 2004 on the Vesper Street property. The next day, the magistrate held another status conference and noted that discovery was "ongoing" and "shall be completed" by November 15, 2015. The case was referred to the trailing docket.

         [¶5] In December 2015, Mika filed a letter with the clerk of the court requesting a telephonic discovery conference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 26(g). The letter documented Mikas attempts to engage in discovery, including a deadline extension to November 20, a status update letter on December 3, and a telephonic conference between the parties on December 14. She reported that she had not received any responses or objections to her requests and that the parties discovery dispute was unresolved.

         [¶6] On January 20, 2016, while Mikas request for the Rule 26(g) conference was pending, Nathaniel filed his financial statement pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 108(c).[1] He also served Mika with responses to her interrogatories and document requests. Nathaniels responses to inquiries about Timshel, LLC, referred to his financial statement and to attached deeds and to documents that had been "filed with the State of Maine for which the Defendant is listed as a member of the LLC." Nathaniel objected to most of the requests regarding Timshel, LLCs, finances as "overbroad and unduly burdensome" and/or "irrelevant and not likely to produce admissible evidence."

         [¶7] A magistrate (Najarian, M.) held the Rule 26(g) conference on February 24, 2016.[2] On March 3, 2016, the magistrate issued a detailed order directing Nathaniel to answer the interrogatories and respond to the document requests. The magistrate also ordered Nathaniel to pay Mikas attorney fees "to deter any future discovery disputes" and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.