Title: Safety Ins. Group v. Dawson

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2015 ME 64 
Docket: 
Lin-14-367 
Submitted 
On Briefs: April 23, 2015 
Decided: 
May 12, 2015 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ. 
 
 
SAFETY INSURANCE GROUP 
 
v. 
 
GAWAYNE DAWSON 
 
 
ALEXANDER, J. 
[¶1]  Safety Insurance Group (Safety Insurance) appeals from an order of the 
District Court (Wiscasset, Raimondi, J.) granting its request to amend a writ of 
execution enforcing a foreign judgment against Gawayne Dawson pursuant to the 
Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, 14 M.R.S. §§ 8001-8008 (2014), 
and indicating, provisionally, that the post-judgment interest rate of the issuing 
state (New Jersey) would apply.  Safety Insurance argues that the application of 
post-judgment interest is a procedural matter, and, accordingly, the law of the 
issuing state is not entitled to full faith and credit, see U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, and 
the writ should be amended to reflect Maine’s post-judgment interest rate, 
see 14 M.R.S. § 1602-C(1)(B) (2014).   
 
2 
[¶2]  We do not reach this issue of conflict of laws because the record does 
not indicate that Safety Insurance provided the court with the necessary 
documentation of the statutory post-judgment interest rate for New Jersey, as the 
court ordered it to do.  Because the court never issued a final writ or entered a final 
judgment, we must dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 
I.  CASE HISTORY 
[¶3]  In 2012, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a default judgment 
against Dawson, awarding Safety Insurance $9,412.80 plus $260.26 in attorney 
fees.  After nearly two years of nonpayment by Dawson, the New Jersey court 
issued a certification of statewide judgment lien against Dawson, providing for a 
new total debt amount of $9,721.43, including pre- and post-judgment interest.   
[¶4]  In May 2014, Safety Insurance sought registration and enforcement of 
the judgment in Maine.  Safety Insurance mailed notice of its filing of the foreign 
judgment to Dawson.  See 14 M.R.S. § 8004(2).  On May 15, 2014, the District 
Court entered the New Jersey judgment pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 8003 and issued a 
notice of registration of foreign order.  The court then issued a writ of execution in 
July 2014 indicating that Dawson owed $9,721.43 in principal debt and an 
additional $180 in costs. 
[¶5]  Safety Insurance moved to amend the writ to include post-judgment 
interest, commencing on the date that the judgment was entered in Maine, and 
 
3 
specifically requested that the court apply Maine’s 2014 statutory post-judgment 
interest rate of 6.13% pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 1602-C(1)(B).  By an order entered 
on August 18, 2014, the court concluded that the post-judgment interest rate of 
New Jersey, rather than Maine, should apply to the foreign judgment.  In order to 
permit it to finalize the writ, the court ordered Safety Insurance to “supply [it] with 
documentation of the correct post-judgment interest rate from the issuing state of 
New Jersey” and indicated that, upon receipt of this information, the court would 
amend the writ to include the appropriate interest rate.  There is no indication in 
the record that Safety Insurance filed this documentation as ordered by the court.  
Instead, before the court could finalize the writ, Safety Insurance brought this 
appeal. 
II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS 
[¶6]  “The long-standing final judgment rule requires that, with limited 
exceptions, a party may not appeal a decision until a final judgment has been 
rendered in the case.”  Irving Oil Ltd. v. ACE INA Ins., 2014 ME 62, ¶ 8, 
91 A.3d 594.  A final judgment “is a decision that fully decides and disposes of the 
entire matter pending before the court . . . leaving no questions for the future 
consideration and judgment of the court.”  Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 
2003 ME 135, ¶ 16, 837 A.2d 148; see also M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1).  Here, the court 
required additional documentation in order to amend the writ to reflect 
 
4 
post-judgment interest.  Thus, the court’s order, as one that “adjudicate[d] less than 
all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties,” was not a final 
judgment.  M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1); see also 14 M.R.S. § 1602-C(1) (2014) 
(providing that “[t]he applicable post-judgment interest rate must be stated in the 
judgment, except for judgments in small claims actions”).   
[¶7]  The fact that Safety Insurance believed that the court’s conclusion on 
the applicable post-judgment interest rate was incorrect does not relieve it of its 
obligation to comply with the court order and supply the documentation necessary 
to finalize the judgment it sought to appeal.  Because none of the recognized 
exceptions to the final judgment rule apply in this case, see Bond v. Bond, 
2011 ME 105, ¶¶ 7-13, 30 A.3d 816, the appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory 
and remanded so that, after receiving the appropriate documentation, the court may 
enter a final judgment.   
The entry is: 
Appeal dismissed.  Remanded to the District Court 
for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.  
 
5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the briefs: 
 
Daniel J. Eichorn, Esq., Gosselin & Dubord, P.A., Lewiston, 
for appellant Safety Insurance Group 
 
Gawayne Dawson did not file a brief 
 
 
 
Wiscasset District Court docket number CV-2014-36 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY