Find Legal Information

Chow v. Chow
Download as PDF
Wordperfect 3
Back to Opinions page 

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURTReporter of Decisions
Decision:	1997 ME 208
Docket:	Aro-97-162
Submitted
on Briefs:	September 19, 1997
Decided:	October 21, 1997

Panel:  WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and LIPEZ, JJ.

ALROY CHOW

v.

EASTLYN CHOW

WATHEN, C.J.


	[¶1]  Plaintiff Alroy Chow appeals from a judgment enforcing a divorce
decree entered in the Superior Court (Aroostook County, Pierson, J.) on a
motion filed by defendant Eastlyn Chow.  He argues on appeal that the court
erred in calculating interest on an overdue alimony award from the date of
the divorce judgment rather than the date on which the payment was due. 
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
	[¶2] The original divorce judgment, as amended in 1989, provides in
relevant part as follows:

Alimony is awarded to the defendant in the amount of $35,000
per year until remarriage of defendant or death of either party,
with the first payment to be made within one year of the date
hereof.  Alternatively, at the plaintiff's election, the plaintiff may
satisfy his alimony obligation by payment of a lump sum amount
of $225,000 to the defendant payable annually over three years
bearing simple annual interest of 10%.  However, such election
must be made within 120 days from the date of this decree with
the first payment due within 8 months thereafter.  Pursuant to
19 M.R.S.A. § 721, it is the Court's intent that alimony may not
be increased.  It is also the Court's intent that alimony not be
decreased.

	[¶3] Plaintiff elected the option of making a lump sum payment of
$225,000 payable over three years, beginning in 1990.  As of the date of
defendant's enforcement motion in 1996, there was still an outstanding
balance.  The court ordered plaintiff to pay the balance of the alimony award
together with interest from the date of the amended divorce judgment.
	[¶4] Relying on our opinion in Raymond v. Raymond, 480 A.2d 718
(Me. 1984), plaintiff argues that the court erroneously imposed an interest
obligation on a periodic alimony payment before the payment was due. 
Plaintiff is mistaken.  He opted for the lump sum payment.  Although the
original order was ambiguous, in determining the enforcement motion the
court appropriately clarified its judgment.  Murphy v. Murphy, 1997 Me. 103   
¶ 8, 694 A.2d 932, 934.  As clarified, the judgment reflects the fact that the
lump sum alimony award was payable in three annual installments with
interest{1} due from the date of the judgment.  Such an award is well within
the range of discretion afforded the trial court.  Adams v. Adams, 620 A.2d
286, 287 (Me. 1993).
	The entry is:
					Judgment affirmed.
Attorney for plaintiff:
	
Richard N. Solman, Esq.	
Solman & Page, P.A.	
P O Box 665	
Caribou, ME 04736	

Attorney for defendant:

Richard L. Currier, Esq.
Currier & Trask, P.A.
505 Maine Street
Presque Isle, ME 04769-2393