Opinion ID: 2054348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Rejection of the Report

Text: [¶ 16] Fairley contends that the Superior Court should have accepted the stipulation (that the parties would not present evidence to support a claim of adverse possession from 1980 to the present) so that it was clear error for the court to reject the report based on its finding that Fairley presented no evidence of activity within the last 20 years on the disputed parcel. [¶ 17] The use of referees is provided for because reference relieves justices of the Superior Court from the necessity of conducting the trial and requires only that they consider the acceptance or rejection of the referee's report and the entry of judgment. Bruk v. Town of Georgetown, [4] 436 A.2d 894, 896 (Me.1981). A referee's report that finds facts and makes legal conclusions without error has a consummating effect once it is accepted and a judgment is entered by the court: Rule 53 has not changed the well-established principle that the referee's finding is final if supported by credible evidence and not otherwise erroneous as a matter of law. Wendward Corp. v. Group Design, Inc., 428 A.2d 57, 61 (Me.1981). The scope of review of a report is limited, see Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 53.4 at 701 (2d ed.1970), that is, [t]he Superior Court is required to accept the referee's factual findings on these issues unless they are clearly erroneous. Walker v. Provost, 566 A.2d 749, 750 (Me.1989) (emphasis added). [¶ 18] If the Superior Court modifies the referee's report, we review the evidence to see whether it supports the referee's finding, or the court's modification. See, e.g., Wendward Corp., 428 A.2d at 61 (because the evidence supported the referee's finding that the disputed expenses were caused by defendants' negligence, rather than the court's modification that the costs would have occurred irrespective of defendants' negligence, the Superior Court's modification was in error). When the Superior Court accepts the findings of fact of the referee but modifies the report by ordering a different remedy, we have stated, [b]ecause the court's judgment is based on the referee's report, we review directly the decisions of the referee. Phillips v. Gregg, 628 A.2d 151, 152 (Me.1993). In the present case, the court rejected the report and decided the case de novo by making factual findings and reaching legal conclusions. The Superior Court rejected the referee's report as clearly erroneous because the referee accepted the stipulation about adverse possession past 1980. However, the court may find the report, or parts thereof, clearly erroneous only when the factual findings are unsupported by the record; accepting a stipulation is not an erroneous factual finding. [¶ 19] Clearly, a stipulation should be adhered to unless it becomes apparent that it may inflict a manifest injustice upon one of the contracting parties, or the agreement was made by apparent mistake. MP Associates v. Liberty, 2001 ME 22, ¶ 29, 771 A.2d 1040, 1049. Neither party argues that the stipulation should be examined for injustice or mistake. We have recognized the legality and binding effect of an agreement to foreclose adjudication of an issue before a referee. See Thornton v. Estate of Cressey, 413 A.2d 540, 543 (Me.1980). [5] [¶ 20] In the present case, because the court rejected the entire report as clearly erroneous at the outset, it did not explicitly assess the referee's interpretation of the law. Although the Superior Court initially had the option of rejecting or accepting the report, the court's rejection was improper because it was based on an erroneous reason  the court did not point to any clearly erroneous factual findings. Nor do the parties argue on appeal that the referee found facts in clear error.