Court Opinion

ID: 9712189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:48:27.443014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:10.684354
License: Public Domain

DANA, J.,
with whom CALKINS, J., joins, dissenting.
[¶ 16] I respectfully dissent. The Court has not considered the particular circumstances of Browne’s late answer in relation to the legal precedent that default judgments are appropriate only when there is unconscionable delay.
[¶ 17] We have held that when a defendant is tardy in filing an answer and the plaintiff moves for the entry of a default, the trial court must balance
the importance of the parties being diligent in the trial of cases against the general disfavor with which the law views judgments by default. As has been said: [Substantial rights should not be determined by default if that procedure can reasonably be avoided and no substantial prejudice has resulted.
Millett v. Dumais, 365 A.2d 1038, 1040 (Me.1976) (quoting Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 55.4 at 21-22 (2d ed. 1970 & Supp.1981) (internal *173quotation marks omitted)). In Millett the Court decided although “admittedly the defendant was tardy in filing his answer,” the trial court properly denied the motion for a default judgment. Id. at 1039. The Court recognized that “there are circumstances under which default judgments become appropriate, such as cases in which the action is not contested, or where the record indicates unconscionable delay or contumacious conduct.” Id. at 1040 (emphasis added).
[¶ 18] We have defined what “good cause” means on a case by case basis. In Thomas v. Thompson, 653 A.2d 417, 419 (Me.1995), the defendant forwarded a complaint to the insurance representative who answered late, because he had been on vacation and returned to over 15 new suits demanding attention. Id. The trial court denied the motion to set aside the default; we vacated that decision. Id. at 421. We highlighted that “[t]here is a strong preference in our law for deciding cases on the merits.” Id. at 420. Furthermore,
Consistent with this preference, we note that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c), which is identical to M.R. Civ. P. 55(c), motions to set aside a default have been granted in cases when no gross neglect was involved in the late filing, the non-defaulting party will not be substantially prejudiced by reopening the case, and a meritorious defense exists.
Id. (emphasis added). Here, there was “good cause” to set aside the default because the conduct of both the insured and insurer revealed an honest effort to comply with filing rules. See id.
[¶ 19] We will assess the validity of an excuse in the “particular circumstances” of a case. See, e.g., Design Build of Maine v. Paul, 601 A.2d 1089, 1091 (Me.1992). There is a difference between a “failure to respond at all to the initial complaint,” and “a failure to comply with the rules governing pretrial procedures,” the latter being less egregious, at least in the context of the particular facts of the case. Id. In Design Build the plaintiff did not answer an amended counterclaim, the defendant moved for a default, and the court denied the plaintiffs ensuing motion to set aside the default. Id. Because the “failure to respond arose solely from confusion surrounding the entrance of new counsel shortly after the filing of the amended counterclaim,” and the circumstances of the case did not reflect either “ ‘an unresponsive party’s needless protraction of litigation’ or a case ‘fraught with delay ... caused by [a party],’ ” the court had erred in denying the motion to set aside the default. Id. (quoting Porges v. Reid, 423 A.2d 542, 544 (Me.1980)).
[¶20] Although Browne failed to respond to the complaint in a timely fashion (i.e., within ten days), she did not do so to “protract” the litigation, or cause undue delay; this is evidenced by her filing the answer on the schedule from which she had been operating, that is the typical twenty days to answer a complaint prescribed by Rule 12. Whereas Rule 12 dictates that service of a motion will alter the twenty day time period to ten days when the court denies the motion, Browne’s lack of knowledge of this time change is not gross neglect.
[¶ 21] We have firmly recognized that time limits set by the rules of civil procedure, and by the trial court in its orders, must be followed. However, in the context of an entry of a default, which declares the defendant’s liability without the truth-seeking function of a trial, though necessary to conclude stagnant cases, narrowly missing a time deadline should not automatically result in a default judgment. Ignoring a time deadline altogether justifies the entry of a default. See Interstate Food Processing Corp. v. Pellerito Foods, *174Inc., 622 A.2d 1189 (Me.1993); Erskine v. Comm’r of Corr., 682 A.2d 681, 683 (Me. 1996);3 Mockus v. Melanson, 615 A.2d 245 (Me.1992); see, e.g., Cutillo v. Gerstel, 477 A.2d 750, 752 (Me.1984) (affirming the trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside the entry of a default, because the appellant had “no basis for assuming that the suit against him came to a standstill” when his attorney filed a motion to withdraw). Browne did not completely ignore a deadline. Compare Firth v. City of Rockland, 580 A.2d 694, 696 (Me.1990) (affirming the trial court’s decision that the defendants’ explanation for a late answer, that their insurance company failed for over a year to respond to the plaintiffs notice of claim, was “no excuse”).
[¶ 22] Courts “exist to do justice, and are properly reluctant to lend their processes to the enforcement of an unjust judgment.” Field, McKusick & Wroth § 55.7 at 24. Because Browne presented a meritorious defense as required by Rule 55(c), see Hart v. Terry L. Hopkins, Inc., 588 A.2d 1187 (Me.1991), did not cause an unconscionable delay with the late filing of the answer, and because the rights of the plaintiff were not substantially affected by the ten day delay, I would hold that the trial court exceeded the bounds of its discretion in denying Browne’s motion to set aside the entry of default.

. Because the assistant attorney general, defending the State, did not respond to court ordered discovery deadlines, the court entered a default judgment; however, the court granted the defendant’s motion for relief because the assistant attorney general's alcoholism and lying to supervisors about the case constituted a "good cause.” Erskine, 682 A.2d at 684. We affirmed because the trial court properly applied the "good cause” standard.