Opinion ID: 4116907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Order of Sanctions against Attorney Thiem

Text: [¶17] Attorney Thiem argues that the court erred by granting Ard’s Rule 66 motion against her and imposing an order of sanctions, because Ard’s motion and the procedure used by the court did not comply with the requirements for contempt proceedings established in Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 66. We agree. [¶18] We review a judgment of civil contempt for an abuse of discretion. Sullivan v. Tardiff, 2015 ME 121, ¶ 17, 124 A.3d 652. As to a court’s interpretation and application of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, we exercise de novo review and “look to the plain language of the rules to determine their meaning.” Gauthier v. Gerrish, 2015 ME 60, ¶ 9, 116 A.3d 461 (quotation marks omitted). [¶19] When the court issued its March 11, 2016, order sanctioning Attorney Thiem, there were five pending contempt motions filed by Ard. Only Ard’s motion of February 18, 2016, however, was directed against Attorney 9 Thiem; each of the other motions sought sanctions solely against Tucker. Therefore, only the February 18 motion could have been the basis for the court’s order sanctioning Attorney Thiem. We examine that motion and the process surrounding it. [¶20] In her motion, Ard stated that she filed it “pursuant to Rule 66 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure,” which governs the contempt process. Ard also asserted in the motion that its purpose was to obtain a “compensatory monetary remedy” and “remedial compensation” caused by “the continuing contempt of [the] court’s orders” granting Ard contact rights with Isabella. On that basis, Ard sought the issuance of a contempt order against Attorney Thiem because of Attorney Thiem’s alleged role advising Tucker not to allow contact between Ard and Isabella in violation of a court order. [¶21] “A remedial sanction is a sanction imposed to coerce the termination of an ongoing contempt or to compensate a party aggrieved by contempt.” M.R. Civ. P. 66(a)(2)(C). Ard’s February 18 contempt motion must be seen as one for remedial sanctions, not just because Ard characterized her relief that way, but because the nature of the sanctions she sought against Attorney Thiem—reimbursement for attorney fees and other expenses that 10 Ard claims were precipitated by Attorney Thiem’s allegedly contemptuous conduct—falls squarely within the definition of a remedial sanction. See id. [¶22] Rule 66(d) establishes a comprehensive procedure to determine the imposition of remedial sanctions. A party’s motion to initiate a plenary remedial proceeding “shall be under oath and set forth the facts that give rise to the motion or shall be accompanied by a supporting affidavit setting forth the relevant facts.” M.R. Civ. P. 66(d)(2)(A). An “attorney’s signature [on a court filing] . . . does not satisfy the procedural requirements of Rule 66” that a motion be under oath. Estate of Steven L. Lake, 2016 ME 64, ¶ 9, 138 A.3d 483. Ard’s motion was not under oath, however, and the only affidavit accompanying her motion contained billing records to support Ard’s requested attorney fees. Where “the motion for contempt . . . was neither verified nor submitted with an accompanying affidavit, the court erred in proceeding on the patently inadequate motion.” Id. On this basis alone, the court committed error in entertaining Ard’s motion. [¶23] Additionally, after a contempt motion is filed, the court is required to set the motion for hearing and issue a contempt subpoena, which must allow the respondent a reasonable time to file an answer and prepare a defense. M.R. Civ. P. 66(d)(2)(B). The order must also direct the movant to 11 serve the contempt subpoena and either the contempt motion or the court order on the respondent. M.R. Civ. P. 66(d)(2)(C). Service must be made “by an officer qualified to serve civil process.” Id. Here, the court did not set the matter for hearing, issue a contempt subpoena, or issue an order of service, and there is no suggestion in the record that Ard properly served Attorney Thiem with the motion—all of which are required by Rule 66.6 A court may not issue an order of contempt when it fails to issue a contempt subpoena absent “unique circumstances” that are not present here. Cayer v. Town of Madawaska, 2009 ME 122, ¶ 9, 984 A.2d 207 (holding that the absence of a contempt subpoena did not vitiate the contempt order where the court held a nontestimonial hearing and allowed the parties to submit written evidence and argument). Because the court failed to issue a subpoena and hold a hearing or otherwise allow Attorney Thiem an opportunity to submit evidence or otherwise be heard, the contempt order cannot stand. [¶24] Because Ard’s motion did not satisfy the procedural requirements of Rule 66 and because the court did not implement the process required by that Rule, we vacate the order issued against Attorney Thiem. 6 Ard argued on appeal that Attorney Thiem waived any objection to defects in the contempt motion for sanctions by failing to raise those issues below. As Ard acknowledged at oral argument, however, Attorney Thiem did not “miss” a twenty-one-day deadline to respond to the motion because the motion was not properly presented in the first place. 12 Further, the court erred in entertaining any request for relief based on Ard’s February 18 motion because it bears no meaningful resemblance to a motion that satisfies the essential requirements of Rule 66. See Lake, 2016 ME 64, ¶ 9, 138 A.3d 483. We therefore remand with instructions for the court to dismiss the motion.7 The entry is: Order denying Nicole Tucker’s motion to terminate contact affirmed. Order of contempt and sanctions against Attorney Susan C. Thiem vacated. Remanded with instructions to dismiss the motion for sanctions against Attorney Thiem. Susan C. Thiem, Esq. (orally), Law Office of Susan C. Thiem, Esq., Lincolnville, appellant pro se and for appellant Nicole Tucker Roger L. Hurley, Esq. (orally), Camden, for appellee Serena Ard Waldo County Probate Court docket number 2011-0160 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY 7 As we have noted supra, the court has not specified the dollar amount of Attorney Thiem’s remedial sanction. In a different context, we have held that where an order of monetary sanctions does not quantify the amount the responsible party must pay, an appeal from that order is interlocutory and must be dismissed. Conservatorship & Guardianship of Ann B. Thomas, 2017 ME 11, ¶¶ 10-11, --- A.3d ---. Here, on its face, Ard’s motion was defective to an extent that it could not even invoke the court’s authority to grant relief. See Estate of Lake, 2016 ME 64, ¶ 9, 138 A.3d 483. Therefore, a remand for the court to determine the amount of any sanctions would be fruitless, and we dispose of the matter here.