Mika H. Lentz v. Nathaniel A. Lentz — 2017 ME 107

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 	Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 	2017 ME 107
Docket: 	Cum-16-477
Submitted
On Briefs: April 27, 2017
Decided: 	June 1, 2017
Panel: 	SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
MIKA H. LENTZ
v.
NATHANIEL A. LENTZ
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
Nathaniel’s filings on appeal violate the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure.
We affirm the judgment and decline to issue sanctions.

2
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).

3
The letter documented Mika’s 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 Mika’s 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. 	Nathaniel’s 	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, 	LLC’s, 	finances 	as 	“overbroad 	and 	unduly
burdensome” 	and/or 	“irrelevant 	and 	not 	likely 	to 	produce 	admissible
evidence.”
1 	The rule required Nathaniel to have filed this “within 21 days of the Family Division
Scheduling Order or before mediation, whichever is earlier.” 	M.R. Civ. P. 108(c) (Tower 2015).
Therefore, his financial statement should have been filed no later than September 25, 2015, the
date of the first mediation. Rule 108(c) has since been amended, effective July 29, 2016.

4
[¶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 Mika’s
attorney fees “to deter any future discovery disputes” and warned that a
“[f]ailure to respond timely may lead to further sanctions.”
[¶8] 	On April 11, 2016, Mika filed a motion for sanctions based on
Nathaniel’s continued noncompliance with discovery requests and orders.
The court (Eggert, J.) held a hearing on the motion on May 18, 2016. Nathaniel
argued that he had produced “sufficient information” and that the court’s
March 3 order did not contain a deadline by which he had to comply. 	He
requested additional time to respond. 	Mika argued that Nathaniel had had
eight months to produce the discovery and that
[t]he only thing that has been received today, Your Honor, is the
2013 and 2014 Timshel[] tax returns [and] one warranty deed . . .
Not 	one 	of the 	interrogatories 	that 	I've 	requested 	has 	been
answered. 	There has been no other financial documentation to
deal with Timshel[] to which he is a named owner. 	There has
been no documentation provided as to the property at 96 Vesper
which has gone in and out of Timshel[] during the marriage. 	At
2 	The M.R. Civ. P. 26(g) conference was originally scheduled for consideration during a
January 25, 2016, settlement conference, but had to be continued due to a lack of time. During the
settlement conference, however, the family law magistrate (Najarian, M.) determined that, based on
the parties’ arguments, documents related to Timshel, LLC, going forward from 2014 were
discoverable.

5
one point it was in Mr. Lentz's name personally. 	No information
on that whatsoever, Your Honor.
[¶9] The court found that Nathaniel had “largely not complied with the
[discovery] order,” the matter had already been delayed for failure to comply
with the magistrate’s order,3 and Mika was unable to determine the status and
value of certain assets without the discovery. 	The court granted Mika’s
motion and ordered that the following facts were established:
1. The property located at 96 Vesper Street in Portland, Maine, is
entirely marital. 	The Defendant is precluded from offering any
evidence to rebut this finding.
2. Any property held by any LLC, including Timshel, LLC, in which
the Defendant is or was a member during the marriage has a
marital component consisting of the increase in value of said
property which occurred during the marriage. 	The Defendant is
precluded from introducing any evidence to rebut this finding.
3. 	All the rental properties held by any LLC in which the
Defendant is or was a member during the marriage were filled to
capacity and the rental amount for each unit shall be determined
to be the city average with respect to the size and location of the
property. 	The Defendant is precluded from introducing any
evidence to rebut this finding.
The court deferred ordering attorney fees until the final hearing. 	Nathaniel
did not file a motion for further findings of fact or conclusions of law. See M.R.
Civ. P. 52.
3 The docket sheets indicate that final hearings were previously scheduled for—but not held
on—January 4, 2016; February 1, 2016; March 1, 2016; and May 2, 2016.

6
[¶10] 	One day before the final hearing, Nathaniel filed a motion for
relief from the sanctions order pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(b) and attached an
affidavit from his mother. Nathaniel alleged, for the first time, that he did not
have access to the requested documents from February 2016 to May 2016
because they were under the control of his mother who had been sailing off
the coasts of the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos Islands. 	Nathaniel’s filing
provided 	no 	explanation 	for 	his 	repeated 	failures 	to 	provide 	required
discovery prior to February 2016 or for his failure to raise the alleged
unavailability of documents prior to or during the May sanctions hearing.
[¶11] 	The court (Darvin, J.) denied the Rule 60(b) motion at the final
divorce hearing, which was held on June 3 and 7, 2016. 	At the hearing, the
court concluded that the sanctions order addressed only the marital status of
the property, and, therefore, testimony regarding the contributions of the
parties—to the extent that the testimony was based on information provided
in discovery—would be considered by the court in its division of property.
[¶12] By judgment entered September 23, 2016, the court granted the
divorce and divided the marital property, awarding the entire marital interest
in the Vesper Street property and Timshel, LLC, a value of $450,000, to
Nathaniel. Based on its determination that Mika should be awarded sixty-five

7
percent of the overall value of the marital property, Nathaniel was ordered to
pay Mika a “property settlement or equalization payment” in the amount of
$150,623. 	Nathaniel did not file a motion for further findings of fact or
conclusions of law but filed a timely notice of appeal. 	See 14 M.R.S. § 1901
(2016); M.R. App. P. 2(b)(3); M.R. Civ. P. 52.
[¶13] On February 24, 2017, Mika filed a motion for sanctions with this
Court, contending that Nathaniel submitted, in violation of the Maine Rules of
Appellate Procedure, an improper appendix and a reply brief containing
arguments 	that 	are 	not 	supported 	by 	the 	record. 	See 	M.R. 	App. 	P.
8(c)(5), 13(f). 	This Court (Gorman, J.) ordered that the motion would be
considered with the merits of the appeal.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. 	District Court Sanctions Order
[¶14] 	Nathaniel argues that the motion court abused its discretion
when it sanctioned him for repeated disregard of his discovery obligations.
He contends that the court imposed “the most severe sanction” and that it was
“neither just nor specifically related to Mika’s claim of a marital interest in the
property.”

8
[¶15] Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 37(b), the trial court has broad discretion
to sanction a party for withholding evidence, delaying the production of
evidence, or failing to comply with discovery orders, including an order made
pursuant 	to 	Rule 	26(g). 	See 	Camp Takajo, 	Inc. 	v. 	SimplexGrinnell, 	L.P.,
2008 ME 153, ¶ 13, 957 A.2d 68. 	A court may issue a discovery sanctions
order designating facts as established for the purposes of the action being
litigated or prohibiting a party from introducing designated matters into
evidence. M.R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)-(B).
[¶16] 	When determining the appropriate sanction, “the court should
take into account the purpose of the specific rule at issue, the party’s conduct
throughout the proceedings, the party’s bona fides in its failure to comply,
prejudice to other parties, and the need for the orderly administration of
justice.” Baker’s Table, Inc. v. City of Portland, 2000 ME 7, ¶ 17, 743 A.2d 237.
“Because the trial court must weigh these factors and is in a unique position to
understand the effects of the failure to comply, both general and specific, we
review the court’s decisions to impose sanctions for abuse of discretion.”
Id.; see Harris v. Soley, 2000 ME 150, ¶ 11, 756 A.2d 499 (concluding that an
abuse of discretion in a discovery sanctions order may be demonstrated only
when the court makes a “serious mistake” in weighing the applicable factors).

9
[¶17] 	Early in the divorce proceedings, Nathaniel acknowledged that
Timshel, LLC, contained a marital component in the increased value of the
property. 	However, 	between 	September 	2015, 	when 	Mika 	requested
discovery about Timshel, LLC, and May 2016, when the sanctions hearing was
held, Nathaniel repeatedly failed to adequately respond to Mika’s discovery
requests. 	The court’s earlier discovery orders did not deter Nathaniel, who
continued to disregard the court’s orders and offer excuses that the court was
entitled to find were unavailing.
[¶18] 	As the magistrate noted in a March 3 order, “the exchange of
financial information is a vital part of most divorce proceedings.” 	See Harris,
2000 ME 150, ¶ 16 n.13, 756 A.2d 499 (“Liberal discovery is one of the
principal devices available to effectuate the purpose of the Maine Rules of Civil
Procedure ‘to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
action.’”). Mika had no other means to procure the requested information, she
was unable to determine the marital component of a considerable asset
without the discovery, and she was denied a timely final divorce hearing due
to the delays caused by Nathaniel. 	On this record, Nathaniel has failed to
demonstrate 	that the court made a “serious mistake” in weighing these
factors. We conclude that the motion court did not abuse its discretion in the

10
sanctions it imposed for Nathaniel’s repeated failures to provide necessary
discovery. 	See Harshman v. Harshman, 2017 ME 60, ¶¶ 17-18, --- A.3d ---;
Harris, 2000 ME 150, ¶ 11, 756 A.2d 499.
B. 	Motion for Sanctions Before the Law Court
[¶19] Mika contends that Nathaniel improperly included documents in
the appendix that either were not proffered or were specifically excluded by
the trial court and that Nathaniel made unsupported arguments in his reply
brief in violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[¶20] 	Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(c)(2) provides that “[t]he
appendix shall not include any documents that are not a part of the trial court
file.” 	We may impose sanctions against a party on appeal who submits an
appendix that is not prepared in accordance with the rules. 	M.R. App. P.
8(c)(5). 	“Compliance with our Rules of Appellate Procedure is important to
the proper functioning of this Court.” Hutchinson v. Bruyere, 2015 ME 16, ¶ 9,
111 A.3d 36 (alterations omitted).
[¶21] 	Nathaniel’s inclusion in the appendix of tax documents that the
trial court specifically excluded pursuant to the sanctions order that is the
subject of this appeal is not such an apparent violation of Rule 8 that it

11
“frustrates the purposes of the rules governing appellate procedure.” 	See id
¶ 10. Under the circumstances, the motion for sanctions is denied.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
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
Portland District Court docket number FM-2015-479
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY