Teresa Sands v. Donald E. Thomas , 162 A.3d 226 ( 2017 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2017 ME 98 Docket: Pen-16-317
Submitted
On Briefs: April 27, 2017
Decided: May 18, 2017
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
TERESA SANDS
v.
DONALD E. THOMAS
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Teresa Sands appeals from a post-judgment order entered in the
Superior Court (Penobscot County, Mallonee, J.), pursuant to 14 M.R.S.
§ 6014(2)(B) (2016), awarding her attorney fees of $8,000—an amount
significantly less than the nearly $60,000 she requested—after a jury found
Donald E. Thomas liable for illegal eviction and wrongful use of civil
proceedings.
[¶2] We review an award of attorney fees pursuant to section
6014(2)(B) “for abuse of discretion and accord the trial court substantial
deference,” Mancini v. Scott, 2000 ME 19, ¶¶ 4, 10, 744 A.2d 1057 (quotation
marks omitted), recognizing that the “court is in the best position to observe
the unique nature and tenor of the litigation as it relates to a request for
2
attorney fees,” Kezer v. Cent. Me. Med. Ctr., 2012 ME 54, ¶ 28, 40 A.3d 955 (quotation marks omitted).
[¶3] In awarding fees of $8,000, the court explained that Sands’s claim
for illegal eviction was “uncomplicated” and based on “straightforward and
almost completely undisputed” facts; and that “the litigatory effort in the case
was increased by several orders of magnitude” because of “[t]he addition of
claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and the
request for an award of punitive damages,” which “greatly expanded the
volume and complexity of the body of relevant facts[,] . . . increased the
likelihood of trial[,] and lengthened the trial itself.” Because Sands did not
include a transcript of the trial proceedings as part of the record on appeal, we
assume that the record supports those findings. See Rothstein v. Maloney,
2002 ME 179, ¶ 11, 816 A.2d 812.
[¶4] Additionally, Sands argues that the court did not adequately
explain the award of $8,000, as opposed to some other amount. Although
Sands filed a motion for additional findings of fact, she did not propose
findings about the specific number of hours that an attorney would
reasonably work on the case and on the illegal eviction claim in particular. See
M.R. Civ. P. 52(b) & Advisory Committee’s Note to 2015 amend. (“[I]t is the
3
litigant’s responsibility to include with the [Rule 52(b)] motion suggested
findings that are both specific and supported by the record.”); Eremita v.
Marchiori, 2016 ME 160, ¶ 3, 150 A.3d 336. We therefore infer that the court
properly made the factual findings needed to support its ultimate
determination that an $8,000 fee award was “reasonable.” See 14 M.R.S.
§ 6014(2)(B); Sullivan v. Tardiff, 2015 ME 121, ¶ 15, 124 A.3d 652.
[¶5] Of the five substantive claims, accompanied by a request for
punitive damages, that Sands raised in her complaint, she prevailed on only
two, and of those, as the court correctly observed, only the claim for illegal
eviction could support an award of attorney fees. Although Sands argues that
her non-fee claims arose from the illegal eviction and that she was therefore
entitled to an award that reflected her attorneys’ cumulative effort on the
case, we have never held that a court is required to issue a cumulative award
for both fee and non-fee claims when those claims are factually linked. See
Advanced Constr. Corp. v. Pilecki, 2006 ME 84, ¶ 31, 901 A.2d 189. Further,
regardless of whether the claims were factually related, we assume that the
record supports the court’s express finding that there was a distinction in
complexity between the fee and non-fee claims. See Rothstein, 2002 ME 179,
¶ 11, 816 A.2d 812.
4
[¶6] We therefore conclude that the court did not apply an improper
legal standard in evaluating Sands’s request for attorney fees, see Advanced
Constr. Corp., 2006 ME 84, ¶ 31, 901 A.2d 189, and that the court’s ultimate fee
award of $8,000 does not reflect any abuse of discretion, see Kezer, 2012 ME
54, ¶ 28, 40 A.3d 955; Mancini, 2000 ME 19, ¶ 10, 744 A.2d 1057.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Julie D. Farr, Esq., Gilbert & Greif, P.A., Bangor, for appellant Teresa Sands
Donald Brown, Esq., Don Brown Law, Brewer, for appellee Donald Thomas
Penobscot County Superior Court docket number CV-2014-104
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY