Court Opinion

ID: 9773991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:06:05.981739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:00.508492
License: Public Domain

SILVER, J.,
with whom SAUFLEY, C.J. and JABAR, J., join, concurring.
[¶ 21] I concur in the Court’s opinion, including its holding that the District Court erred in determining that the post-*407judgment interest statute was not implicated in this case. I agree that post-judgment interest can legally be assessed on the judgment amount. I write separately to emphasize that the court should, on remand, determine the issue of whether Brown has shown good cause for a waiver of that post-judgment interest.
[¶ 22] Title 14 M.R.S. § 1602-C(2) (2009) provides for post-judgment interest accruing from the entry of judgment, except that “[o]n petition of the nonprevail-ing party and on a showing of good cause, the trial court may order that interest awarded by this section be fully or partially waived.” Brown’s submissions to the court are sufficient to meet the statute’s requirement of a petition for waiver. See Tarbuck v. Jaeckel, 2000 ME 105, ¶ 21, 752 A.2d 176, 181-82 (finding arguments sufficient to raise issue of waiver of post-judgment interest, “[ajlthough not well articulated or clearly presented”); Austin v. Austin, 2000 ME 61, ¶¶ 9-10, 748 A.2d 996, 1000 (finding implicit petition for waiver in party’s written argument to the court because it “notified both the court and the opposing party of his intention to avoid being taxed interest”). However, because the trial court erroneously concluded that no post-judgment interest had been incurred, it did not reach the question of whether good cause had been shown to waive post-judgment interest. Therefore, this issue should be determined on remand.
[¶ 23] A court’s decision to grant or deny a waiver petition is discretionary. See Carter v. Williams, 2002 ME 50, ¶ 31, 792 A.2d 1093, 1101. A number of facts could support a determination of good cause here. First is the fact that Habrle filed the appeal and thus caused the delay. Although appealing the judgment was an exercise of Habrle’s legal rights, the court could decide that Brown should not be penalized for a delay that she did not control. Cf. Tarbuck, 2000 ME 105, ¶¶ 21, 25, 752 A.2d at 182, 183 (holding that waiver of interest was proper where there had been a long delay in the enforcement action); Austin, 2000 ME 61, ¶ 10, 748 A.2d at 1000 (finding waiver of interest was not an abuse of discretion considering the payee’s delay of the process). “Post-judgment interest is an enforcement tool to ensure that, once litigants have successfully invoked the power of the courts, the award of just compensation will not be diminished by delay in payment.” Carter, 2002 ME 50, ¶ 31, 792 A.2d at 1100-01 (quotation marks omitted). Because Brown did not intentionally delay payment or avoid her responsibility to pay, “the legislative policy of providing a disincentive for delay of payment is not called into play here.” A.F.A.B., Inc. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 2001 ME 128, ¶ 18, 777 A.2d 831, 837 (Saufley, J., dissenting); cf. id. ¶ 13, 777 A.2d at 836 (finding court abused its discretion in waiving post-judgment interest where party had a history of nonpayment, so that “without post-judgment interest [the other party] may not ever receive the money to which it is legally entitled”).
[¶ 24] Waiver of post-judgment interest may also be supported by the fact that the delay in payment was apparently based on a misunderstanding, shared by the court, of which judgment date triggered the running of the payment period. Finally, the court may consider that post-judgment interest was not addressed in the divorce judgment, as the statute requires, see 14 M.R.S. § 1602-C(1) (2009), and therefore Brown received less notice that post-judgment interest would start to accrue than the statute contemplates. Although this Court has held that interest is mandatory absent a waiver even where a judgment fails to state the interest rate, see Walsh v. Cusack, 2008 ME 74, ¶ 6, 946 *408A.2d 414, 416-17, that does not preclude considering it as a potential source of good cause to waive the interest.
[¶ 25] In conclusion, I concur in the Court’s decision to vacate and remand the judgment on the post-judgment interest issue, and would further hold that on remand the court should determine whether good cause exists for a waiver of that interest.