Court Opinion

ID: 9510533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:56:53.83414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:02.061487
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE REGNIER
dissenting.
¶41 I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion affirming an award of attorney fees and costs.
¶42 In Jennifer’s petition for dissolution she requested an award of attorney fees and costs. However, in the pretrial order, she abandoned her claim for fees and costs and asserted that each party was able to pay their own fees and costs. The issues set forth in the pretrial order do not include a request for reimbursement of attorney fees and costs.
¶43 On the second day of trial, Jennifer changed course again and presented evidence for reimbursement of attorney fees. Peter objected on the grounds that any evidence regarding attorney fees and costs was beyond the issues set forth in the pretrial order. The court overruled the objection and amended the pretrial order sua sponte.
¶44 Rule 16(e), M.R.Civ.P. states in pertinent part that the pretrial order “shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.” In my view, manifest injustice was not established given this procedural history and Jennifer should have been bound by her contentions set forth in the pretrial order. I think the District Court abused its discretion in allowing Jennifer to present evidence on attorney fees and costs and then make an award based on this evidence.
JUSTICES GRAY and LEAPHART join in the foregoing dissent.