Opinion ID: 2074105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Reopen the Evidentiary Record

Text: [¶ 15] The Dalphonses contend that the court abused its discretion in denying their motion to reopen the evidentiary record to allow evidence of further damages incurred between the trial and the entry of judgment. They argue that they were not raising new issues but were instead attempting to offer evidence of further damages resulting from continued erosion of their land into the pit and from the obstruction of their driveway. [¶ 16] A party who has rested, cannot thereafter introduce further evidence except in rebuttal unless by leave of court. M.R. Civ. P. 43(j). The trial court has discretion in determining whether a party may reopen its case after the close of the evidence. In re Danielle S., 2004 ME 19, ¶ 2, 844 A.2d 1148, 1149; see also New Eng. Hotel Realty, Inc. v. Finley, 508 A.2d 121, 122 (Me.1986). A court should permit the presentation of additional evidence if doing so will prevent an unfair result. Ringuette v. Ringuette, 594 A.2d 1076, 1078 (Me.1991); New Eng. Hotel Realty, Inc., 508 A.2d at 122. The court may consider other factors as well, including whether allowing additional evidence would be necessary for an accurate adjudication, would give the court a more complete picture, or would create any unfair disadvantage to the other party. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Thibeault, 561 A.2d 486, 487 (Me.1989). [¶ 17] Here, the court's rationale for denying the motion to reopen the record was that the motion raise[d] issues not previously discussed or raised by evidence or pleadings. In examining the additional damages described in the motion, however, it is evident that these asserted damages relate to the continued effects of St. Laurent's placement of the boulders and the continued erosion of the Dalphonses' property as a result of the St. Laurent gravel pit. The court did not enter a judgment for nearly three years after conducting the trial. Although the Dalphonses bargained for the boulders to remain in place pending the outcome of the trial, they could not reasonably have predicted that the boulders would remain in place for nearly three years while awaiting a decision from the court. [¶ 18] In these circumstances, to avert an unfair result, the court should have allowed the Dalphonses to present additional evidence to support the categories of damages claimed in their motion to reopen. [4] We therefore vacate the denial of the Dalphonses' motion and remand the matter to afford both parties the opportunity to present evidence regarding the damages described in the Dalphonses' motion to reopen.