S. Ct. Civ. No. 2014-0012

In a proceeding regarding division of proceeds from the sale of a marital home shared for 16 years by a couple who were divorced in 2009, the Superior Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing certain expert testimony by the former husband, but abused its discretion in determining the former wife's share of the proceeds from the sale, erring in finding the amount of the actual mortgage payoff. It also erred in applying a repair credit that the former husband gave to the purchaser, in a manner causing an unsubstantiated reduction in the wife's share of the proceeds. The court failed to clearly apportion responsibility for the repair allowance between the parties, considering that the divorce decree allocated all responsibility for maintaining the former marital home to the former husband. Likewise, the Superior Court appears to have failed to consider a January 2010 ruling which prohibited both parties from damaging, changing and altering the former marital home in any way that would result in a reduced market value. The February 14, 2014 order of the Superior Court is vacated, and this case is remanded for further proceedings in compliance with this opinion, including factual findings on the appropriate distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, factual findings on each party's fault with regards to deterioration of the property, and factual findings on their effect on the apportionment of the sale proceeds to each party.