Falmouth. The children are to attend Auburn schools so long as either Lisa or Gary resides in the Auburn home. II. THE ORAL AGREEMENT [¶ 9] Lisa contends that the court erred by finding that the agreement was unenforceable because it was not in writing. She contends that because she substantially complied with the agreement, the part performance doctrine applies and creates an exception to the writing requirement of the statute of frauds. Lisa, however, does not challenge the court’s third basis for its decision: that performance of the agreement was impossible. Because the court had a valid, independent, unchallenged basis for concluding the agreement was unenforceable, we do not reach Lisa’s statute of frauds challenge. See Holland v. Sebunya, 2000 ME 160, ¶ 9 n. 6, 759 A.2d 205, 209 (<HOLDING>). III. DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY [¶ 10]
holding that issues must be briefed to be preserved on appeal holding that errors not raised before the trial court will not generally be considered on appeal holding that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that issues not briefed to this court generally will not be considered on appeal holding issues not adequately briefed on appeal are abandoned