Court Opinion

ID: 9644484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:57:24.589747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:14.135547
License: Public Domain

GODFREY, Justice,
dissenting.
On December 31, 1974, appellee Laurel Bank commenced an action against three defendants: Albert, Dunn, and appellant Burns. The first count of the complaint alleged that the bank held a perfected security interest under a security agreement entered into between the bank and a person doing business as Canaan Marine and Camping Center (“Canaan Marine”), dated May 2, 1973; that the security agreement and financing statement covered as collateral all inventory then owned or after acquired; that sometime in early March, 1974, the defendants acquired, by purchase or otherwise, certain units of travel trailer inventory of Canaan Marine that were subject to the bank’s perfected security interest; that Canaan Marine was at that time in default under the security agreement and the bank was entitled to possession of the trailer units as part of the collateral; that defendants’ acquisition of the units and refusal to surrender possession of them to the bank caused it financial loss for which they have not reimbursed the bank; that the value of the units was $35,000 at the time of their acquisition by defendants.
A second count of the complaint alleged also that the defendants’ acquisition of the trailer units was not a good-faith purchase in the ordinary course of business but that defendants acted in concert to deceive and defraud both Canaan Marine and the bank, and that defendants converted the units to their own use to the damage of the bank in the amount of $50,000. The complaint nowhere alleges the amount of the debt owed by Canaan Marine to the bank either at the time of the alleged conversion of the collateral or at the time of the commencement of the action. A list of the particular trailer units alleged to have been wrongfully acquired by defendants was attached to the complaint.
All three defendants were represented by the same lawyer, appellant’s attorney, who filed a timely answer denying all allega*46tions of the complaint that asserted liability on the part of any of the defendants. The action lay dormant until March, 1977. Meanwhile, defendants Albert and Dunn were indicted, convicted, and sent to prison for criminal offenses arising out of the events that led to the civil action against them. The third defendant, appellant Burns, was not prosecuted. Dunn was represented by appellant’s attorney in his criminal trial and appeal; Albert was represented by other attorneys.
In March, 1977, the civil action having been placed on the list for dismissal for want of prosecution, the plaintiff bank obtained an order granting a continuance, and in April, 1977, the Superior Court issued a pretrial order placing the case on the court list. The pretrial order stated nothing about the nature of the case, the issues, or the evidence to be introduced.
Sometime in the spring or summer of 1977, the bank’s lawyer called the attorney for the three defendants by telephone to discuss possible disposition of the action. During the conversation, only the names of Albert and Dunn were specifically mentioned. The attorney for the three defendants told the bank’s lawyer that Dunn, still in prison, had informed him that on his release he was going to file a petition in bankruptcy, “so that a judgment against him meant nothing.” Moreover, Albert, already released from prison, had said he had nothing and, if necessary, would file in bankruptcy. The attorney concluded that neither Albert nor Dunn was interested in defending the action.
Forgetting that Burns was also a party defendant to the action, appellant’s attorney agreed to sign a docket entry for judgment against the defendants in the bank’s action. Though Burns had not been mentioned in the discussions, the bank’s lawyer assumed that he should be included in the docket entry inasmuch as the coming trial of the action would involve all three defendants. Accordingly, he prepared a docket entry including all three names. By a covering letter entitled “Re: Laurel Bank and Trust Company vs. James M. Albert, et aJs.[sic]”, he forthwith transmitted to appellant’s attorney a docket entry naming all three defendants in the caption and in the text of the entry itself, which provided as follows:
“That Judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendants, James M. Albert, Robert Dunn and John Burns, severally and jointly, for the relief prayed for in Plaintiff’s Complaint, being the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,-000.00) plus cost of suit.”
Appellant’s attorney signed the entry and mailed it back to the bank’s attorney, who filed it with the clerk of courts. The clerk entered judgment on the docket on September 26, 1977. On the same day, the bank filed a request for execution to issue. One month later execution issued against Burns’s property.
When Burns discovered his plight after getting notice of a sheriff’s sale, he moved within a reasonable time to vacate the September 26 judgment on the ground of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” under Rule 60(b)(1), M.R.Civ.P. His motion does not attack the judgment either as “void” under Rule 60(b)(4) or for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).
The Superior Court held a hearing on the motion to vacate. Testimony was given by appellant’s attorney and the lawyer who represented the appellee bank in the discussions that led up to the signing of the docket entry. The testimony of the two lawyers was not in conflict. Appellant’s attorney said he simply forgot that Burns was a defendant in the bank’s action. During the two and one-half years between the bank’s commencement of the action and the signing of the docket entry, he had not communicated with Burns about the action. He had drawn deeds for Burns, however, and knew he had assets. With that knowledge he testified that he never could have agreed to a default judgment against Burns. He knew that the case had been *47continued in April to avoid dismissal under the two-year rule but did not think about Bums in connection with the continuance. When he signed the docket entry, he did not think about the fact that Burns was a named defendant and would be bound by the document.
Nothing in the testimony suggests that the bank’s lawyer deliberately misled appellant’s attorney. The bank’s lawyer testified that his investigation of the real estate assets of the defendants took place after the docket entry had been made. Throughout the transaction he assumed that Burns was to be included in the docket entry.
Without opinion, the Superior Court denied the motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(1). Although the granting or denial of a Rule 60(b) motion rests largely in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, I think it was error to deny the motion in the unusual circumstances of this case.
The language of Rule 60(b) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure is derived from that of Rule 60(b) of the. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1946, and the operative language of section (b)(1) is identical in the Maine and federal rules:
“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
Rule 60(b) provides for certain exceptions to the principle of finality of judgments. Generally speaking, that principle “serves a most useful purpose for society, the courts, and the litigants.” 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 60.19 at 239 (2d ed. 1948). For that reason, though Rule 60(b) is often described as a remedial rule to be liberally construed,1 the federal and Maine courts have applied it cautiously.2 Normally, where a federal court’s determination in a particular case reflects careful appraisal of the facts and balancing of the interests involved, the appellate courts defer to the trial court’s exercise of its sound legal discretion.3 That exercise.of discretion must be more closely examined, however, where the trial court’s denial of 60(b) relief has precluded any consideration of the merits of the controversy,4 especially when the party has not been personally at fault but has been defaulted through the negligence of counsel,5 or when a large sum of money is involved.6
Where a judgment of dismissal or default has been rendered without any examination of the merits, the trial court should consider “whether in the particular case the interest of deciding cases on the merits outweighs the interest in orderly procedure and in the finality of judgments.”7 In such a case attention should be given to whether there appears to be any merit in the defense or claim.8 Additional factors may be relevant to the justice of granting or denying the motion: for example, whether significant reliance interests have developed on the *48basis of the judgment under attack.9 Rule 60(b)(1) is not available for relief from the consequences of a deliberate choice of trial strategy which has proved unfortunate.10
In this ease, the trial justice made no explicit findings in support of his decision, and the record reveals nothing from which we can infer any reason that he might have had for denying the motion. In particular, he made no finding as to whether there may be merit in appellant’s defense. This case is unusual in that it appears probable from the face of the pleadings that appellant has, at the very least, some defense in the matter of damages. The complaint nowhere alleges the amount due on the unpaid debt for which the trailer units were alleged to be security. The first count of the complaint seems to make a claim for reimbursement for appellee’s financial loss resulting from the conduct of appellant and the two other defendants, but the nature or amount of that loss is not particularly alleged. The second count alleges conversion of the trailer units by the three defendants to appellee’s great financial loss and damage. The complaint contains one prayer for judgment, applicable to both counts, in the amount of $50,000 with interest and costs. Since the amount of the unpaid debt is not alleged and since the total value of the trailer units at the time they were “acquired” by the defendants is alleged to have been only $35,000, it is difficult to hypothesize a state of facts in which the appellee’s judgment of $50,000, plus cost of suit, against appellant Burns does not greatly exceed the amount of damage appellee actually sustained as a result of any act of Burns. In short, it can be inferred from the pleadings that the judgment probably results in a large windfall to the appellee at appellant’s expense. This feature of the present case distinguishes it from some other Rule 60(b) cases in which no showing was made of a meritorious claim or defense. Compare Sheepscot Land Corp. v. Gregory, Me., 383 A.2d 16, 24 (1978).
In the more common case where a default judgment is entered against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, the defendant is given some protection with respect to the amount of the judgment when the claim is not for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain. Rule 55(b), M.R.Civ.P. The purpose of Rule 55(b) is to prevent judgments for excessive amounts where defendants fail to defend against unliquidated claims. That purpose should not be disregarded in a case like the present one. Though the judgment entered in this case is not in terms covered by Rule 55, the fact that it appears to be seriously disproportionate to the actual damage of the appellee is one factor to be considered in the balancing process that Rule 60(b)(1) requires.
The record discloses none of the factors that often militate against setting aside a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1). The trial court’s control of its calendar is in no way impaired. The authority, or apparent authority, of attorneys to act for their clients is not really impugned: the consent of appellant’s attorney to the entry of judgment was not consent to a true settlement involving a trade-off of advantages and disadvantages for both sides; the appellee gave up nothing to obtain the entry of judgment. This is not a case in which a party is trying to get out of a bad bargain or escape the consequences of a deliberate choice of strategy. Appellee bank has not changed position to its detriment in reliance on the judgment. No third-party rights have intervened.
The evidence that Burns’s attorney forgot about appellant Burns when he consented to entry of judgment against his three defendants is clear and convincing in the light of the circumstances revealed by the record. Since he stated in his testimony that he had not been misled by anything *49the bank’s attorney said or did, his. inadvertence must be regarded as a form of “neglect” within the meaning of the rules. Whether his inadvertence or neglect was “excusable” is to be determined after a balancing of the factors discussed above and not solely by reference to whether some degree of justification can be found for his oversight.
It is unconscionable to permit the appel-lee bank to execute on a $50,000 judgment inadvertently confessed, where there has been no inquiry whatever into the nature or amount of the injury, if any, sustained by the appellee as a result of appellant’s attorney’s careless act. Justice clearly required that appellant’s motion be granted in 'order that the merits of the case could be heard and determined. I would sustain the appeal, vacate the judgment with respect to appellant Burns, and remand for entry of an order granting appellant’s motion under Rule 60(b)(1) to set aside the judgment insofar as it affects appellant.

. E. g., Bridoux v. Eastern Air Lines, 93 U.S. App.D.C. 369, 214 F.2d 207, 210 (1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 821, 75 S.Ct. 33, 99 L.Ed. 647; Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 189 F.2d 242, 245 (3d Cir. 1951).

. See, e. g., Bennett v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 396 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1968); Ingham v. Tzikas, Me., 320 A.2d 665 (1974); Willette v. Umhoeffer, Me., 245 A.2d 540 (1968). See 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2857 (1973); B. Wham, Federal District Court Rule 60(b): A Humane Rule Gone Wrong, 49 A.B.A.J. 566 (1963).

. Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij, N.V. v. Jay Emm, Inc., 301 F.2d 114, 115 (2d Cir. 1962).

. Schwab v. Bullock's, Inc., 508 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1974); Spann v. Commissioners, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 443 F.2d 715, 716 n. 1 (1970); Leong v. Railroad Transfer Service, Inc., 302 F.2d 555 (7th Cir. 1962).

. Barber v. Turberville, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 335, 218 F.2d 34 (1954).

. Rooks v. American Brass Co., 263 F.2d 166 (6th Cir. 1959).

. 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 60.19 at 239 (2d ed. 1948).

. Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., supra note 1, at 244 45; Sheepscot Land Corp. v. Gregory, Me., 383 A.2d 16, 24 (1978).

. Bibeau v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., 139 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 429 F.2d 212 (1970); Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., supra note 1, at 246. See C. Wright & A. Miller, supra note 2, at 161.

. Sampson v. Radio Corp. of America, 434 F.2d 315 (2d Cir. 1970); Reville v. Reville, Me., 370 A.2d 249 (1977).