Opinion ID: 2321097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reference Over Objection

Text: [¶ 30] In referring the matter, the court stated that it is in the interest of judicial economy for the Referee to hear the post-divorce motions because of the complex issues and the Referee's familiarity with the case. Despite the requirements of M.R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2) and 19-A M.R.S. § 252(1)(B), the court made no finding that there were exceptional circumstances or some exceptional condition requiring reference of the matter. Such findings would have been difficult to support in this case, as the issues presented were mostly legal, and any factual issues involved events subsequent to the referee's hearing and matters collateral to the issues presented to the referee. [¶ 31] In family division practice, the filing of a post-judgment motion is treated as the commencement of a new action, the same as the filing of an original complaint for divorce or for establishment of parental rights. M.R. Civ. P. 101(a). Such actions must be commenced, as this post-judgment proceeding was commenced, by personal service on the other party, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 103. Responding parties must file an appearance and answer within twenty days after service. M.R. Civ. P. 105. Post-judgment motions, just like original complaints, must be accompanied by a properly completed summary sheet. M.R. Civ. P. 120(a). [¶ 32] Appointment of a referee for such new actions filed as an original complaint or a post-judgment motion is governed by M.R. Civ. P. 119, which states: The court may appoint a referee in any case where the parties agree that the case may be heard by a referee, pursuant to Rule 53. The advisory notes to Rule 119 further clarify that [a]ppointment of a referee is allowed only by the agreement of the parties. [¶ 33] Unlike Rule 119, the general reference rule, M.R. Civ. P. 53, allows a very narrow exception to appoint a referee over objection. Rule 53(b)(2) indicates, in pertinent part, that [i]n absence of agreement of the parties, a reference shall be the exception and not the rule and further specifies that a reference shall be made only upon a showing that some exceptional condition requires it. Rule 53(b)(2) is thus similar to 19-A M.R.S. § 252(1)(B), permitting appointment of a referee over objection only after demonstrating exceptional circumstances. [¶ 34] Assuming, arguendo, that Rule 53 provides some narrow exception to the unequivocal prohibition on opposed references stated in Rule 119 and the Rule 119 advisory notes, here there was no showing and no finding of some exceptional condition to justify an opposed reference order. Judicial economy, the only justification stated in the court's order, cannot equate with exceptional condition, if it did, the exception would be a blank check to delegate decision-making responsibility from overworked judges to referees. Moreover, it is questionable how judicial economy is served by replacing one hearing before the court to decide the discrete questions presented on the post-judgment motions with three hearings: one to appoint the referee, one before the referee to develop a recommended decision on the post-judgment motions, and one back before the court to accept or reject the referee's report and decide those issues that only the court could decide. Judicial economy is not served by a process that results in three hearings on a post-judgment motion when one hearing would do. [¶ 35] With the post-judgment motions before it, the trial court was obligated to hear and decide those motions, absent agreement of the parties or a finding of exceptional circumstancesneither of which is present hereto justify delegation of the initial decision-making responsibility to the referee. [¶ 36] This Court should reach the merits of this interlocutory appeal from a judge's refusal to act on the business before the court and attempted delegation of the court's adjudicative responsibilities to a referee, in violation of the prohibition on such delegation stated in Rule 119 and applicable to post-judgment motions, which constitute a new Family Division action.