Opinion ID: 2074592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: timber trespass

Text: [¶ 13] Jean LeClerc alleges several errors in the trial on the Dionnes' timber trespass claim. He first contends that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law. The basis of that motion, however, was that without the testimony of Forest Ranger Lance Martin, the Dionnes had not proved their damages; the real issue was thus the admissibility of Martin's testimony. Contrary to LeClerc's contention, Martin did not offer an expert opinion, but testified based on his personal knowledge of the results of the stump count he and other Maine Forest Service employees conducted on the Dionnes' land. See M.R. Evid. 602, 701; State v. Parks, 544 A.2d 1269, 1271 (Me. 1988). The court neither abused its discretion in allowing Martin's testimony nor erred in denying LeClerc's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
[¶ 14] Jean LeClerc next contends that the court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Dionnes on the amount of their timber trespass damages. LeClerc argues that the issue should have gone to the jury even though Martin's testimony was uncontradicted. We agree. [¶ 15] The assessment of damages is within the sole province of the fact-finder, Avery v. Kennebec Millwork, Inc., 2004 ME 147, ¶ 3, 861 A.2d 634, 635, as are determinations of the credibility and weight of evidence, Estate of Siebert, 1999 ME 156, ¶ 10, 739 A.2d 365, 368. More particularly, a fact-finder, whether it be a jury or a court, is not required to believe witnesses, even if the testimony of [those] witnesses, be they experts or lay witnesses, is not disputed. Irish v. Gimbel, 2000 ME 2, ¶ 8, 743 A.2d 736, 738. When the party who bears the burden of proof introduces evidence that is undisputed, we have held that the fact-finder ha[s] the prerogative selectively to accept or reject it, in terms of the credibility of the witnesses or the internal cogency of the content. In re Fleming, 431 A.2d 616, 618 (Me.1981); accord In re Andrea W., 537 A.2d 596, 598 (Me.1988) (We have long recognized the principle that the [fact-finder] has the responsibility to assess the credibility of the witnesses and to find facts, and may reject the entire testimony of an uncontradicted witness.). [¶ 16] Had the jury been allowed to decide the issue of damages, it could have accepted Martin's uncontradicted testimony and found statutory forfeiture damages in the amount of $54,475. Our precedents make it clear, however, that it would also have been the jury's prerogative to find Martin not to be credible and reject his testimony. By granting the Dionnes' motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court effectively decided the credibility question itself and determined that the jury would have had no choice but to accept Martin's testimony. This was error.
[¶ 17] It was undisputed that Jean LeClerc was responsible for the cutting and removal of trees from the disputed property. Because the jury found that LeClerc had not acted intentionally or knowingly, he must have acted negligently or without fault, which normally would entitle the Dionnes to double damages under 14 M.R.S. § 7552(4)(A). LeClerc asked the court to reduce the damages pursuant to the last sentence of section 7552(3)(B), which provides, The court may reduce the damages awarded for good cause shown when the cutting of trees was done negligently or without fault. This provision became effective September 18, 1999, P.L. 1999, ch. 339, after the trees were cut in this case, and the court declined to apply it retroactively. [¶ 18] LeClerc argues that the good cause provision is procedural, not substantive, in nature, and therefore may be applied retroactively. The trial court rejected this argument, and we agree with the court. In Howe v. Natale, 451 A.2d 1198, 1201 (Me.1982), the plaintiffs sought to increase their recovery by retroactive application of an amendment to section 7552 that increased the plural damages available from double to treble. We held that the amendment should not have been applied retroactively because [t]he law of damages is a matter of substance which is fixed when the cause of action accrues. Id.; see also Raymond v. Lyden, 1999 ME 59, ¶ 1 n. 2, 728 A.2d 124, 125 (stating that trespass provision of 14 M.R.S.A. § 7551-B (Supp.1998) should not have been applied retroactively). In this case, LeClerc seeks to reduce his liability by retroactive application of an amendment to section 7552 that may decrease the damages available. We see no principled distinction between the two cases. The 1999 amendment is as substantive as the one at issue in Howe, and the court did not err in failing to apply it retroactively.