Opinion ID: 6358007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonable Excuse

Text: [¶ 16] Philogene contends that his inattention to the civil forfeiture proceeding was caused by both his incarceration at the time when the proceeding was initiated and his belief that his attorney was representing him on all issues involving the seized $16,545. He argues that he can barely read and write and that it was his attorney's responsibility to file documents to transport him from jail in order to contest the forfeiture proceedings. [¶ 17] A party seeking relief from a default judgment must adduce the facts showing a reasonable excuse for the default. A. Dean Corp. v. White , 429 A.2d 1010 , 1011 (Me. 1981). We have affirmed a trial court's determination that a reasonable excuse had been demonstrated where a default was due in part to a defendant's reliance on assertions made by the opposing party, see Mariello v. Giguere , 667 A.2d 588 , 589-90 (Me. 1995) ; see also Schmid Bros., Inc. v. Roberts , 538 A.2d 291 , 293 (Me. 1988) (affirming the finding of a reasonable excuse where the defaulted party relied on statements made by an employee of opposing party). Similarly, we have held that a trial court committed obvious error when it failed to grant relief from judgment where the opposing party failed to follow a procedural rule. See Scott v. Lipman & Katz, P.A. , 648 A.2d 969 , 972-976 (Me. 1994). [¶ 18] In contrast, we have held that the trial court properly denied a Rule 60(b) motion when a party was properly served and failed to appear at a court proceeding, see e.g. , Haskell , 2017 ME 91 , ¶¶ 14-15, 160 A.3d 1176 ; Butler v. D/Wave Seafood , 2002 ME 41 , ¶ 18, 791 A.2d 928 ; where a party failed to offer any evidence to support his assertion that he had a reasonable excuse, see Maroon Flooring, Inc. v. Austin , 2007 ME 75 , ¶ 9, 927 A.2d 1182 ; and where a party failed to retain Maine counsel in a timely manner, see Interstate Food Processing Corp. v. Pellerito Foods, Inc. , 622 A.2d 1189 , 1193 (Me. 1993). [¶ 19] The unusual factual circumstances of this case steer us in a different direction. Although Philogene was served by the State in the civil forfeiture matter, the record as a whole compelled the conclusion that Philogene believed his attorney was representing him in proceedings related to his $16,545. Because of the unusual actions of the prosecutor's office, there were two separate actions brought by the State concerning the same $16,545. In docket number ANDCD-CR-2017-624, a criminal case against Philogene, count 5 asserted that the State was entitled to a criminal forfeiture, 15 M.R.S. § 5826, of that money from Philogene. In docket number AUBSC-CV-2017-79, the State asserted that, pursuant to 15 M.R.S. §§ 5821 - 5822, it was entitled to a decree of forfeiture against the money and named Philogene as a party in interest. In the criminal case, Philogene's counsel appropriately was seeking the return of his client's property, but, inexplicably, the trial court deemed his motion moot pending the outcome of the civil forfeiture proceeding even though the criminal action was still pending. [¶ 20] Here, because Philogene had filed a motion in his criminal case to obtain the return of the seized funds and the State  should have notified Philogene's counsel of the civil action, there is a showing of injustice in the original judgment. Moulton v. Brown , 627 A.2d 521 , 523 (Me. 1993). [¶ 21] Philogene timely filed a Rule 60(b) motion and has continued to seek to have the merits of his argument heard. His attempt to right the wrong effected by the default judgment was not a new litigation strategy after-the-fact. In re David H. , 2009 ME 131 , ¶ 40, 985 A.2d 490 . [¶ 22] The dilemma in which Philogene finds himself is not the result of an intentional failure to appear or a willful disregard of the court proceedings. See Keane v. HSBC Bank USA , 874 F.3d 763 , 765-66 (1st Cir. 2017). Rather, Philogene's dilemma arose out of a reasonable confusion concerning the overlap between the charges filed against him and his own legal responsibilities at the time when the civil forfeiture was initiated. Philogene continued to take legal steps to protect [his] own interests in the criminal proceedings, Town of Wiscasset v. Mason Station, LLC , 2015 ME 59 , ¶ 10, 116 A.3d 458 , and, as supported by the record before the trial court, demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his inattention to the civil forfeiture proceedings.