Case Title: NDC Communications, LLC v. Carle

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016 ME 156

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2016-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2016 ME 156 
Docket: 
BCD-15-578 
Argued: 
September 14, 2016 
 
Decided: 
October 18, 2016 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ. 
 
 
NDC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 
 
v. 
 
KENNETH CARLE III 
 
 
SAUFLEY, C.J. 
[¶1]  Following a bench trial on NDC Communications, LLC’s complaint 
and Kenneth Carle III’s counterclaim, which arose from a construction and 
land development dispute, the court (Murphy, J.) entered a judgment against 
Carle, in the amount of $336,681.24, in the Business and Consumer Docket.  
Carle appeals, arguing that his due process rights were violated during the 
post-trial process and that there was insufficient evidence to support the 
judgment.  Specifically, Carle argues that the court failed to provide him a 
credit due of approximately $25,000, rendering the judgment against him 
inaccurate by that amount.  We affirm the judgment.1 
                                         
1  We conclude without further discussion that the court did not err in denying Carle’s motion for 
relief from an order that was not a final judgment.  See M.R. Civ. P. 60(b) (“On motion and upon such 
terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment.”) (emphasis added). 
 
2 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The parties in this matter engaged in an unusually complex set of 
agreements in the context of the development of a piece of land in 
Kenduskeag.  All of the work, purchases of equipment, and monetary 
exchanges were undertaken without a written contract.  When the parties’ 
working relationship broke down, NDC filed a complaint asserting that it was 
owed substantial funds from Carle, and Carle counterclaimed against NDC 
seeking contract remedies and other relief. 
[¶3]  At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court made extensive 
written findings in a thirteen-page order.  The court concluded that Carle was 
liable to NDC, but it determined that the state of the relatively chaotic record 
was such that it could not, without further argument from the parties, 
determine the exact amount still owed by Carle.  Indeed, the parties 
themselves could not tell the court with any clarity what was owed to whom.  
Accordingly, the court sought post-trial arguments.  In so doing, the court 
asked NDC to submit an “affidavit” summarizing specific evidence and setting 
forth a calculation of damages.  The court explicitly ordered that the affidavit 
was to include only evidence that had been admitted at trial and that Carle 
could submit opposing argument.  After receiving the parties’ post-trial filings, 
 
3 
the court entered judgment enforcing a mechanic’s lien against Carle in the 
amount of $336,681.24, and requiring Carle to convey title to an excavator to 
NDC. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶4]  Carle first argues that his due process rights were violated by the 
post-trial procedures employed by the court, asserting that the court provided 
NDC an opportunity to present evidence that Carle could not challenge.  We 
are not persuaded.  Although the court sought NDC’s post-trial argument 
through the filing of an “affidavit,” it explicitly ordered that the affidavit could 
include only evidence that had been presented during the trial.  The purpose 
and function of the affidavit was to present argument summarizing the 
evidence of damages, not to present new evidence. 
[¶5]  To the extent that Carle is arguing that the affidavit did, contrary to 
the court’s order, contain facts not presented at trial, we are similarly 
unpersuaded.  All of the facts referenced in the affidavit were presented at 
trial—most are found in the multitude of exhibits admitted at trial, and some 
are found in the testimony of NDC’s witnesses.  Thus, the court did not err in 
considering NDC’s affidavit, over Carle’s opposition, because the affidavit 
 
4 
contained only factual statements that are supported by the record 
evidence—evidence that Carle had a full opportunity to challenge at trial. 
[¶6]  Ultimately, it appears that Carle is arguing that he should have 
been allowed to cross-examine NDC’s representative regarding the argument 
and the mathematical calculations included in NDC’s post-trial filings.  Carle, 
however, had the opportunity to respond to the NDC affidavit and presented 
his own arguments to the court for consideration.  He was simply not 
deprived of an opportunity to be heard. 
[¶7]  Carle also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that 
the judgment against him failed to credit approximately $25,000 in payments 
that he argues should have been included in the court’s calculations.  Contrary 
to Carle’s contentions, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the 
court’s judgment, including its determination of damages.  See In re 
Guardianship of Hailey M., 2016 ME 80, ¶ 15, 140 A.3d 478; see also Pelletier v. 
Pelletier, 2012 ME 15, ¶ 20, 36 A.3d 903 (“In the absence of a motion for 
additional findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to M.R. 
Civ. P. 52(b), we will infer that the trial court made any factual inferences 
needed to support its ultimate conclusion.”).  The court’s extensive factual 
findings are supported in the record, as are the court’s ultimate calculations. 
 
5 
 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the briefs: 
 
Richard Silver, Esq., Lanham, Blackwell & Baber, P.A., 
Bangor, for appellant Kenneth Carle III 
 
F. David Walker, Esq., and Allison A. Economy, Esq., Rudman 
Winchell, Bangor, for appellee NDC Communications, LLC 
 
 
At oral argument: 
 
Richard Silver, Esq., for appellant Kenneth Carle III 
 
Allison A. Economy, Esq., for appellee NDC Communications, 
LLC 
 
 
 
Business and Consumer Docket docket number RE-2014-03 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY