Court Opinion

ID: 9647132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:24:25.97542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:45.808735
License: Public Domain

CLIFFORD, Justice,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the court on the importance of compliance with M.R.Civ.P. 17A(b)(l) in proceedings to approve a settlement of a claim on behalf of a minor, the noncompliance with that rule in this case was not properly preserved by the Seotts, and, in any event, is harmless error. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
The Seotts moved for relief from the order approving the minor settlement pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 60(b). They were granted a full hearing on that motion. At no time before the Superior Court did they raise the issue of failure to comply with M.R.Civ.P. 17A(b)(l). Their reliance on the issue therefore should be precluded, Morris v. Resolution Trust Corp., 622 A.2d 708, 714 (Me.1993), especially since they did not even brief the issue in their appeal to this court. See Chadwick-BaRoss, Inc. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 483 *977A.2d 711, 717 (Me.1984) (issue neither briefed nor raised at oral argument not preserved).
Even if the Scotts are allowed to belatedly pursue the Rule 17A(b)(l) issue on appeal, it should avail them nothing. The purpose of the Rule 17A affidavit and supporting papers requirements is to insure that the party representing the minor child is fully informed of the circumstances and the terms of the settlement, including the amount of the attorney fees and the costs that are to be paid from the settlement funds. At the hearing on the Rule 60(b) motion, the court found that the Scotts had been fully informed as to the attorney fees. In the circumstances of this case, the failure to comply with Rule 17A(b)(l) concerning the Scotts’ right to attend the Rule 17A hearing amounted to nothing more than harmless error.
Moreover, the court did in fact consider again the issue of the reasonableness of the attorney fees at the Rule 60(b) hearing, and concluded that they were reasonable. Although the presumptive fee provisions of 24 M.R.S.A. § 2961(3) were not adhered to, I would not disturb the considered decision of the Superior Court in this case. I would affirm the denial of the motion for relief from judgment.