Opinion ID: 883246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Issue III: The Special Master's Report

Text: Did the Special Master's Report comply with the requirements of Rule 53, M.R.Civ.P? Joseph Fiedler contends that he was deprived of rights arising under Rule 53, M.R.Civ.P., because he was not allowed to examine and challenge the Special Master's report until it was accepted into evidence during the presentation of the plaintiff's case at trial. He now claims that the Special Master substantially exceeded the authority given to him by the District Court and that the report is based on incorrect conclusions that a partnership existed between the parties and that the real property owned by James and Joseph Fiedler was owned as tenancies in partnership. He claims this distorts and invalidates the recommendations made by the Special Master concerning assignments of income and proposals for division of assets. Joseph Fiedler's argument on this issue is basically a reargument of the position he argued at the trial. In substance, it is an argument that the District Court erred in adopting the Special Master's findings. Rule 53(e)(2), M.R.Civ.P., states that the trial court shall accept the master's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. This contention is addressed in Issue IV below. As to the opportunity to be heard prior to trial concerning the Special Master's report, this too is a meritless argument. James Fiedler filed a Motion for Hearing in October 1992, the month before the trial, to discuss the adoption of the Special Master's report. Joseph Fiedler objected to this motion, stating: [A] hearing on this matter before the trial setting is premature and would be duplicative of the matters to be presented at the trial which is scheduled to commence before this Court on the 16th day of November, 1992, for a period of one week at which time the Court will determine whether or not or how much, if any, of the Master's Report will be utilized. Moreover, Joseph Fiedler had ample opportunity to respond to the Special Master's preliminary report and in fact filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Adoption of Special Master's Preliminary Report as Final Report and later filed an Objection to the Special Master's Report following the conclusion of the trial. He also challenged specific findings of the Special Master's Report several times before the trial and, as stated above, refused a hearing on the report in the weeks prior to the trial. To argue now that he was prejudiced in light of this conduct is utterly without merit. We hold the District Court allowed Joseph Fiedler to respond to the Special Master's Report in accordance with the requirements of Rule 53(e)(2), M.R.Civ.P.