You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Perry v. Whitehead

Citations: 2010 ME 134; 10 A.3d 673; 2010 Me. LEXIS 139; 2010 WL 5157986Docket: Docket: Ken-10-232

Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine; December 21, 2010; Maine; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves an appeal by Randall R. Whitehead against a District Court ruling that mandates his child support payments to Mary E. Perry be made entirely in cash. The key legal issue is whether Whitehead can offset his child support obligation with in-kind credits for payments on the residence shared by Perry and their children. Whitehead and Perry, who were never married, have a longstanding agreement from 2001 concerning the mortgage and ownership of a property in Belgrade, Maine, which Whitehead claimed should count against his child support. The court, however, upheld that child support must be paid in money per 19-A M.R.S. 1501(2) and 2006(4), emphasizing that such payments ensure the custodial parent can manage the child's needs consistently. The court further noted that Whitehead's mortgage payments were intended to protect his ownership interest, not satisfy his child support obligations. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed, requiring Whitehead to fulfill his child support obligations in cash, while any disputes over property payments could be addressed in separate proceedings. The ruling underscores the legal principle that monetary payments for child support cannot be substituted with property-related expenses, except under extraordinary circumstances, which were not found in this case.

Legal Issues Addressed

Child Support Payment Requirements under 19-A M.R.S. 1501(2) and 2006(4)

Application: The court ruled that Randall R. Whitehead must fulfill his child support obligations entirely in cash, rejecting his claim for in-kind credits for mortgage payments.

Reasoning: Child support payments, as defined by 19-A M.R.S. 1501(2) and 2006(4), must be made in money and cannot typically be satisfied by in-kind contributions.

Distinction Between Child Support and Property Ownership Issues

Application: The court distinguished between child support obligations and property ownership, indicating that Whitehead's payments were separate from his child support responsibilities.

Reasoning: The court reinforced this decision by referencing the parties’ 2001 agreement, which obligates Whitehead to make the payments he now seeks credit for, highlighting the distinct nature of the child support and property issues.

In-Kind Child Support Credits under Compulsion of Circumstances

Application: The court found that Whitehead's mortgage payments were to protect his ownership interest and did not meet the threshold for extraordinary in-kind credits under 'compulsion of circumstances.'

Reasoning: Exceptions may arise under 'compulsion of circumstances,' which allows for credits in certain situations. In Whitehead's case, the court determined that his payments for the Belgrade property were distinct from his child support responsibilities.

Limitations of Parental Rights Actions in Adjudicating Property Matters

Application: The court clarified its lack of authority to decide on property ownership issues within the context of a parental rights and responsibilities case.

Reasoning: The court lacks authority to adjudicate property matters under the parental rights statutes.