Case Title: Knoblach v. Morris

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017 ME 116

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2017-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 116 
Docket: 
And-16-387 
Submitted 
 
On Briefs: May 25, 2017 
Decided: 
June 8, 2017 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
JOHN KNOBLACH 
 
v. 
 
STACYLEE A. MORRIS 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  John Knoblach appeals from a judgment of the District Court 
(Lewiston, Oram, J.) finding him in contempt for failing to pay spousal support 
to Stacylee A. Morris as required by the parties’ divorce decree, and imposing 
a period of incarceration unless he paid the arrearage within a specified time; 
and from the court’s subsequent denial of his motion for reconsideration or 
for relief from judgment.  See M.R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b).  Knoblach argues that 
the court erred by holding the contempt hearing one day too soon based on 
the amount of notice he was entitled to receive pursuant to M.R. 
Civ. P. 66(d)(2)(C), which states that a contempt subpoena must be served on 
the alleged contemnor “no less than 10 days prior to the hearing unless a 
shorter time is ordered by the court.”  See also M.R. Civ. P. 6(a) (stating that if 
 
2 
the last day of a prescribed time period falls on a Sunday, “the period runs 
until the end of the next day”).  We affirm. 
[¶2]  Even if the court erred by holding the hearing within the notice 
period, Knoblach has not demonstrated that the contempt order should be 
vacated.  As shown by the court’s authority to order notice of fewer than ten 
days in contempt proceedings, see M.R. Civ. P. 66(d)(2)(C), that temporal 
framework is not jurisdictional.  Further, after Knoblach was served with the 
contempt subpoena informing him of the date of the hearing, he did not move 
to continue the hearing either in his answer to the contempt motion or at the 
hearing itself.1  Rather, the record demonstrates that at the contempt hearing, 
Knoblach presented evidence and argued his position, and that in its judgment 
the court considered and ultimately rejected Knoblach’s contention on its 
merits.  
[¶3]  Additionally, Knoblach has argued in his post-judgment motion 
and his brief on appeal only that his attorney was unavailable during the week 
before the hearing.  He has not described any additional evidence that he 
would have presented or how he otherwise would have proceeded 
                                         
1  In his answer to the motion, Knoblach stated only that if the court found the answer 
“lack[ing],” or if the court determined that he did “not provide enough evidence or records” at the 
hearing, he then would ask the court “to delay” the hearing—something he did not do.   
 
3 
differently—either with or without the assistance of an attorney—if he had 
had one additional day to prepare.  See Hopkins v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 
2002 ME 129, ¶ 13, 802 A.2d 999 (holding that a party raising a due process 
challenge based on defective notice must show how he or she was prejudiced 
by the error); cf. Daud v. Abdullahi, 2015 ME 48, ¶ 6, 115 A.3d 77 (concluding 
that a defendant’s failure to retain an attorney when he had sufficient time to 
do so was “not a substantial reason that would compel the court to grant a 
continuance”). 
[¶4]  Therefore, contrary to Knoblach’s argument, the court did not err 
or abuse its discretion by proceeding with the hearing without objection on 
the scheduled date, or by denying Knoblach’s motion to reconsider or for 
relief from judgment.  See In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, ¶ 14, 55 A.3d 463 (“When 
due process is implicated, we review . . . procedural rulings to determine 
whether the process struck a balance between competing concerns that was 
fundamentally fair.” (quotation marks omitted)). 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
Allan E. Lobozzo, Esq., Lewiston, for appellant John Knoblach 
 
Martin J. Ridge, Esq., Beagle Steeves & Ridge, LLC, Portland, for appellee 
Stacylee A. Morris 
 
 
Lewiston District Court docket number FM-2012-208 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY