Cote v. Vallee
| Decision Date | 31 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket: Yor-18-463 |
| Citation | 218 A.3d 1148 |
| Parties | Manon COTE et al. v. Roger VALLEE et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Neal L. Weinstein, Esq. (orally), Old Orchard Beach, for appellants Roger Vallee and Melody Vallee
Michael J. O'Toole, Esq. (orally), Woodman Edmands Danylik Austin Smith & Jacques, P.A., Biddeford, for appellees Manon Cote and Sylvain Theriault
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN,* JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
[¶1] Roger and Melody Vallee appealed to the Superior Court (York County, O'Neil, J. ) from a small claims judgment entered in the District Court (Biddeford, Foster, J. ) in favor of Manon Cote and Sylvain Theriault. On that appeal, the parties invited and consented to the Superior Court deviating from the practice for small claims appeals as specified in our rules. See M.R.S.C.P. 11; M.R. Civ. P. 76D, 76F, 80L. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment against the Vallees subject to a modest reduction in the amount of damages that the District Court had awarded to Cote and Theriault.
[¶2] The Vallees now appeal to us from the Superior Court judgment because the process they specifically requested in that court led to a result that is not to their liking. Because parties to a proceeding may not, as a matter of strategy, invite changes in the process required by our rules and then, on appeal, claim that they were prejudiced by the process they requested, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
[¶3] In December 2015, Manon Cote and Sylvain Theriault filed a statement of claim in the District Court seeking a small claims judgment against Roger and Melody Vallee for $6,000. Cote and Theriault alleged that the Vallees had violated the terms of a "license agreement" to provide Cote and Theriault's adjacent property with running water and that, as a result of this breach, Cote and Theriault were forced to install a new well. The District Court held a hearing on the claim in May 2016, after which it entered a judgment in favor of Cote and Theriault for $6,000 plus $92.17 in costs.1
[¶4] The Vallees filed a timely notice of appeal with an embedded request for a jury trial in the Superior Court. See 4 M.R.S. § 105(3)(B)(2) (2018) ; M.R.S.C.P. 11; M.R. Civ. P. 80L. In their request for a jury trial, the Vallees asserted that there were "genuine issues of material fact" as to which they had the right to a trial by jury.2 The Vallees indicated that the District Court hearing had not been recorded.
[¶5] After holding a hearing on the Vallees' request for a jury trial de novo, the Superior Court entered an order granting the request based on its determination that there were "adequate facts in dispute to justify a jury trial." In the same order, however, the Superior Court authorized the parties to file motions for summary judgment.3 The Vallees filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2016. Contrary to the statement they had made in their request for a jury trial, the Vallees asserted in their motion that there were "NO issues of material fact" and that there was "simply no basis to have a trial." Cote and Theriault opposed the motion. After another hearing, the Superior Court denied the summary judgment motion, determining—once again—that there were genuine issues of material fact to be tried.
[¶6] A jury trial was eventually scheduled for October 2018, but, on the day of jury selection, the Vallees waived their jury trial request, and the parties informed the court that they were instead requesting a bench trial, which the court then scheduled. On the day of the bench trial, the court realized that the case had originated as a small claims matter and told the parties, correctly, The Vallees disagreed, saying, "[W]e can waive the jury because there's no law or rule that says you can't waive it ... I think you can certainly waive it as we did here in this case." The Superior Court disputed that assessment, but agreed to proceed with the bench trial anyway if all parties consented, although allowing them to reserve the issue for appeal.
[¶7] The parties indicated that they wished to proceed with the bench trial, which the court then conducted. The day after the trial, having further reviewed the legal question of a party's right to a bench trial in this situation, the court concluded that it lacked the authority to conduct a bench trial de novo on a small claims appeal. After discussing the matter in a chambers conference, the parties agreed that the court should proceed only with an appellate review of the District Court judgment. Additionally, because no record had been made of the small claims hearing, the parties stipulated that the evidence admitted at the Superior Court bench trial was the same as the evidence that had been admitted at the hearing in the District Court. The parties also agreed to rest on the legal arguments stated in their previously-filed memoranda regarding summary judgment.
[¶8] On October 25, 2018, the Superior Court entered a judgment affirming in part and vacating in part the District Court's small claims judgment. The Superior Court affirmed the District Court's determination that the Vallees were liable to Cote and Theriault, but found "inadequate evidence to support a judgment in the amount of $6,000." It therefore remanded the matter to the District Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of Cote and Theriault in the reduced amount of $5,196.84.4 The Vallees then timely appealed to us. See 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2018) ; M.R. App. 2B(c)(1).
[¶9] The Superior Court has specific but limited appellate authority in small claims matters. Taylor v. Walker , 2017 ME 218, ¶¶ 5-6, 173 A.3d 539 ; see 4 M.R.S. § 105(3)(B)(2) ; 14 M.R.S. § 7484-A(1) (2018) ; M.R.S.C.P. 11(d). When, as here, "a defendant in a small claims proceeding appeals from a judgment entered in the District Court, there are three possible courses of action that may follow" in the Superior Court. Kingsbury v. Forbes , 1998 ME 168, ¶ 5, 714 A.2d 149.
Kingsbury , 1998 ME 168, ¶ 5, 714 A.2d 149 (footnote omitted).
[¶10] Therefore, a defendant appealing to the Superior Court from a small claims judgment has only two options: (1) an appeal on questions of law based on the Superior Court's review of the District Court record prepared pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 76F, or (2) a jury trial de novo after demonstrating that there exists a dispute of material fact pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80L. The jury trial option preserves a defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial, which is not available in a District Court small claims setting. See Ela v. Pelletier , 495 A.2d 1225, 1228-29 (Me. 1985). There is no option for a second bench trial. Ferguson v. Jackson , 1997 ME 235, ¶ 3, 704 A.2d 378 ; see also M.R. Civ. P. 80L Advisory Committee's Notes 1986 ( that small claims defendants only have the right "to a retrial by jury, not to a second court trial"). Rather, the District Court is the exclusive forum for a bench trial in small claims matters.
[¶11] Here, the Superior Court was correct in its ultimate conclusion that it lacked authority to adjudicate the case de novo in a bench trial. However, the parties' agreement for the Superior Court to conduct an appellate review of the District Court decision based on the record created in the Superior Court—which they stipulated was the same as that created in the District Court—was not explicitly disallowed by the rules.6 After the Vallees withdrew their jury trial request, all parties agreed, in effect, that the appeal would be limited to questions of law based on the record developed in the Superior Court. Because we now clarify that a Superior Court bench trial is not available in a small claims case, this unusual approach to creating a District Court record will not reoccur.
[¶12] The Vallees acknowledge that they agreed to and in fact invited several material deviations from process required by the rules governing small claims appeals from the District Court to the Superior Court. The Vallees (1) requested a jury trial but then claimed there were no disputes as to material facts; (2) waived the jury trial available in the Superior Court; (3) filed a motion for summary judgment, rather than brief the legal issues on appeal;7 (4) agreed, despite the Superior Court's expressed concerns, to proceed with a bench trial; and (5) agreed that the record developed before the Superior Court could be used as the record on appeal from the District Court judgment.
[¶13] Despite these actions that the Vallees took in the Superior Court, they now contend that, "upon reflection," the Superior Court should not have allowed them to waive their request for a jury trial and that the only way to correct this and other alleged errors "is to remand the case back to the Superior Court and allow [them] to have their jury trial." We review such questions of law de novo. See City of Biddeford v. Holland , 2005 ME 121, ¶ 6, 886 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial