MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 201 7 ME 116 Docket: And

- 16

- 387 Submitted

On	B riefs : 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	 reconsiderat ion	 or for	relief	 from	judgment. S ee 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	s erved	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	if2 the	 last	 day	 of	 a	 prescribed	 time	 period	 falls	 on	 a	 Sunday,	 “the	 period	 runs
until	the	en d	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	a uthority	to	order	notice	of	 fewer than	ten da ys	 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	 Knobl ach’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

wo uld	 have	 present ed 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	 objectio n	 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 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY