MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 201 7 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	 th e	 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	i n	the	best	position	to	observe the	 unique	 nature	 and	 tenor	 of	 the	 litigation	 as	 it	 relates	 to	 a	 request	 for2 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	additi on	 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 ] Addi tionally,	 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	 a ttorney	 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	 the3 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	 “r easonable.” 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	 reflect ed	 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 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY