An Act Regarding Claims for Civil Perjury
Maine Legislature, Session 124, LD 0703
Committee: judiciary
Sponsors: CROCKETT, MILLS, CLEARY, DAVIS, JOHNSON, PRIEST, GOOLEY
Amends: 14 MRSA §870

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE 
The following document is provided by the 
LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY 
at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library 
http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib 
Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied 
(searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) 
() 
/ 
( , 
, 
'~/ 
( 
"'~' 
',-, '~"':"F LAw Ln~B['tll".1' 
~ • i~ it:' 
1J~ 
ftt~1f-ttH 
~.; '("1~ IS, "1=' A IlL.H\ I 
!\f~ 
j'-U):0.",~~, 
Wit'i r~E:; 
124th MAINE LEGIS-LATURE 
FIRST ~GULAR SESSION-2009 
Leg'islative Document 
No. 703 
H.P.486 
House ofRepresenta,tives, February 24, 2009 
An Act Regarding Claims for Civil Perjury 
Reference to the Committee on judiciary suggested and ordered printed . 
Presented by Representative CROCKETT of Bethel. 
Cosponsored by Senator MILLS of Somerset and 
. -m~ 
fr1.77!t1C~ 
MILLICENT M. MacFARLAND 
Clerk 
Representatives: CLEARY of Houlton, DAVIS of Sangerville, JOHNSON of Greenville, 
PRIEST of Brunswick, Senator: GOOLEY of Franklin. 
Printed on recycled paper 
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: 
Sec. L 14 MRSA §870 is repealed and the following enacted in its place: 
§870. Judgment by perjury; action on case 
1. Action; within 3 years. When a judgment has been obtained against a party by . 
the perjury of a witness introduced at the trial by the adverse party, the injured party may, 
within 3 years after that judgment or after [mal disposition of any motion for relief from 
the judgment, bring an action against such adverse party, or any perjured witness or 
confederate in the perjury, to recover the damages sustained by the injured party by 
reason of such perjury. The judgment in the former action does not bar an action 'under 
this section. 
. 
2. 
Specificity of claim. A claim under this section must identify the· specific 
testimony alleged to be false at the initial filing of the claim. 
3. Record; evidence. A claim may not be submitted under this section solely on the 
same record as in the former trial. Evidence discoverable by due diligence before the trial 
cannot be introduced as new evidence to establish perjury. 
. 4. Standard of proof. The plaintiff in an action under this section must prove the 
alleged perjury by clear and convincing evidence. 
5. Affirmative defense. It is an affIrmative defense to an action under this section 
that the plaintiff has no new evidence to present concerning the alleged perjury. 
6. Strictly construed. The pleading and proof requirements of this section must be 
strictly construed. 
SUMMARY 
This bill codifies the holding in Bean v. Cummings, 2008 ME 18, concerning actions 
for civil perjury. 
This bill repeals and replaces the current law on civil perjury, retaining the substance 
·26 
of the law while adding specific requirements for the civil perjury action. 
This bill requires that. the plaintiff include in the initial pleadings the specific 
testimony in the former trial that the plaintiff claims is perjury. The claim may not be 
submitted based solely on the record of the original trial. Evidence is not admissible if it 
was discoverable by due diligence before the former trial. The plaintiff must prove the 
alleged perjury by clear and convincing evidence. It is an affirmative defense that the 
defendant may raise and prove that the plaintiff has no new evidence to present 
concerning the alleged perjury. The pleading and proof requirements m'Ust be strictly 
construed. 
) 
) 
)