Case Name: NORTHEAST BANK OF LEWISTON & AUBURN v. Daniel J. MURPHY and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1988-04-22
Citations: 540 A.2d 1114
Docket Number: 
Parties: NORTHEAST BANK OF LEWISTON & AUBURN v. Daniel J. MURPHY and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company.
Judges: Before NICHOLS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN and CLIFFORD, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 540
Pages: 1114–1115

Head Matter:
NORTHEAST BANK OF LEWISTON & AUBURN v. Daniel J. MURPHY and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued March 22, 1988.
Decided April 22, 1988.
Jeffrey Rosenblatt, Paul F. Macri, (orally), Berman, Simmons & Goldberg, Lewi-ston, for plaintiff.
Daniel J. Murphy (orally), Lewiston, pro se.
James A. McCormack (orally), Richardson & Troubh, Portland, for Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.
Before NICHOLS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN and CLIFFORD, JJ.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.
Defendant Daniel J. Murphy appeals from a Superior Court, Androscoggin County, order denying his September 17, 1987, motion brought under M.R.CÍV.P. 60(a) for correction of a November 13, 1986, judgment assessing prejudgment interest on an award of attorney fees running against him. Since the assessment of prejudgment interest on the award of counsel fees resulted from a deliberate decision on the part of the Superior Court and clear ly was not a clerical error, a Rule 60(a) motion was an inappropriate vehicle to obtain relief from the judgment, and the motion was properly denied. See Davis v. Bruk, 411 A.2d 660, 666-67 (Me.1980); 2 Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 60.2 (2d ed. 1970 & Supp.1981). Nor would it have been appropriate for the Superior Court to have considered the motion as one made under M.R.Civ.P. 60(b) since the court had previously denied a Rule 60(b) motion filed by Murphy and directed at the same November 13, 1986, judgment.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring.