Opinion ID: 1493887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Set-off and Costs

Text: [¶ 12] In his cross-appeal, Runnells asserts that the verdicts should have been offset and that one judgment in favor of Runnells should have been entered in the amount of $13,742.40. Although the court, in its discretion, could have offset the verdicts, see Albert Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Gagnon, 611 A.2d 75, 76 (Me.1992), it did not exceed the bounds of its discretion in determining that the jury verdicts should not be offset, considering that there were separate verdict forms on multiple claims. [¶ 13] The court determined that it would not award costs to either party because, considering the litigation as a whole, neither was a clearly prevailing party. Runnells contends that the court should have determined that he was the prevailing party, as he was awarded the entire amount of his unpaid bill, whereas Quinn was only awarded approximately half that amount on her breach of warranty claim. [¶ 14] The governing law, 14 M.R.S. § 1501 (2005), provides that [i]n all actions, the party prevailing recovers costs unless otherwise specially provided. The Maine Rules of Civil Procedure state that [c]osts shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party, as provided by statute and by these rules, unless the court otherwise specifically directs. M.R. Civ. P. 54(d). [¶ 15] We use a functional analysis to determine who is the prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs. Landis v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 2000 ME 111, ¶ 6, 754 A.2d 958, 959-60. The nature of this inquiry is essentially one of fact; therefore, the court's determination of the prevailing party is reviewed for clear error. Id. [3] The determination of a successful party is based upon success on the merits, not just upon damages, looking at the lawsuit as a whole. Id. ¶ 7. Thus, the fact that Runnells was awarded $27,742.40 on his claim, while Quinn was only awarded $14,000 on hers, does not settle the issue. [¶ 16] The court did not commit clear error in determining that, when looking at the lawsuit as a whole, neither party was the winner or the loser, and hence there was no prevailing party. See id. ¶ 6, 754 A.2d at 959-60. As there was no prevailing party, the Superior Court properly declined to award costs.