Opinion ID: 1906595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: oral argument for motion for attachment

Text: [¶ 6] Johnson argues that the court violated his due process right to a hearing when it ordered the attachment without oral argument. We disagree. [¶ 7] A prejudgment attachment violates due process if the owner of the property attached has not had prior notice of the attachment and opportunity at a meaningful time to be heard concerning whether the attachment would arbitrarily or unfairly deprive him of his property. Perkins v. McGonagle, 342 A.2d 287, 291 (Me.1975); see also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 97, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972). Accordingly, M.R. Civ. P. 4A(c) requires that an order approving an attachment may be entered only after notice to the defendant and hearing and upon a finding by the court that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will recover judgment ... in an amount equal to or greater than the aggregate sum of the attachment .... [¶ 8] Notwithstanding the requirement of M.R. Civ. P. 4A(c) that the court hold a hearing, we have held that a formal hearing with oral argument is not required in a motion for attachment. See Atlantic Heating Co. v. Lavin, 572 A.2d 478, 479 (Me.1990) (trial court did not err when it ruled on motion for attachment without oral argument). Trial courts, as a matter of general practice, should accord litigants an opportunity for a hearing when that opportunity is provided in the rules, as it is in Rule 4A(c). In Cumberland County, by special order of the court, however, [a]ll non-dispositive motions will be decided by the court without oral argument. [3] Moreover, in this case, Johnson was given adequate opportunity to make his position known to the court by filing memoranda, affidavits, and anything else he chose to present, in writing, in opposition to the motion for attachment. In reviewing the record, he has not demonstrated any prejudice that occurred to him as a result of not being accorded an oral hearing following the written submissions he had the opportunity to present. [¶ 9] The vacating of an order entered after a procedural error is not automatic. To vacate such an order, this Court must determine that it was entered after a process that was inconsistent with substantial justice. M.R. Civ. P. 61. We have held that an appellant, to be successful, must demonstrate both error and prejudice resulting to the appellant from the claimed error. See Phillips v. Eastern Me. Med. Ctr., 565 A.2d 306, 308 (Me.1989); FIELD & MURRAY, Maine Evidence § 103.5 (4th ed.1997). Because no prejudice is demonstrated from the lack of an in-court hearing here, the error, if any, in not according an in-court hearing is harmless. [¶ 10] Finally, we conclude that Johnson's remaining claims are without merit. [4] The entry is: Judgment affirmed.