Opinion ID: 4211190
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Judgment Entered Pursuant to Section 5940

Text: [¶22] Cate Street contends that the court erred by construing and applying the acceleration clause and the confidentiality provision when Eastwick did not file a breach of contract claim.3 [¶23] Upon granting an application to confirm an arbitration award, the court is required to enter a judgment in conformity with the award. 14 M.R.S. § 5940. There are limited circumstances in which a court may modify an arbitration award. See id. §§ 5937, 5939; Me. State Emps. Assoc. Local 1989, 3 Cate Street also argues that the court’s actions deprived it of due process. We are not persuaded by Cate Street’s argument and do not address it further. 11 SEIU v. State Dep’t of Corr., 593 A.2d 650, 652 (Me. 1991). The court does not modify an award, however, by construing a term in the award when the term’s meaning is unambiguous. See M.S.E.A. Local 1989, 593 A.2d at 653. [¶24] Here, the court explicitly stated that its interpretation of the acceleration clause was based on the clause’s unambiguous meaning: “Mr. Eastwick is not entitled to judgment for the entire $250,000, at least as of yet. The acceleration provision . . . applies, on its face, only to late installment payments due under section 1(b), not to the initial payment due under section 1(a). Accordingly, the judgment will be for the $100,000 that is clearly past due, and will provide that the judgment may be amended for the entire unpaid amount if any installment payment is missed and not made within 30 days of a written demand for payment . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Thus, there would be an acceleration requiring payment of all remaining unpaid installments, not just the original $100,000 payment and the four quarterly installment payments now past due, only if Cate Street were to fail to make the future quarterly payments as due or within 30 days after a written demand for a missed payment. Otherwise, those quarterly payments not yet due must be paid as specified in the MOU. 12 [¶25] Although the court noted in its order that the parties’ confidentiality had been compromised by the litigation, the court’s judgment incorporated the final agreement, including the ten quarterly payments, without ordering acceleration of those payments not yet due and without modifying any of its terms, including the confidentiality provision. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. Melinda J. Caterine, Esq., and David Strock, Esq. (orally), Littler Mendelson, P.C., Portland, for appellant Cate Street Capital, Inc. Julia G. Pitney, Esq. (orally), Drummond Woodsum, Portland, for appellee Matthew Eastwick Cumberland County Superior Court docket number CV-2016-398 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY