Levis v. Konitzky

• Citation: 2016 ME 167
• Decision Date: 17 November 2016
• Docket Number: Docket: Lin-15-274
• Parties: JAMES N. LEVIS v. GUSTAV KONITZKY et al.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

2016 ME 167

JAMES N. LEVIS v. GUSTAV KONITZKY et al.

Docket: Lin-15-274

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

Argued: March 3, 2016

November 17, 2016

Reporter of Decisions

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

HUMPHREY, J.

[¶1] James N. Levis appeals from a summary judgment entered in the District Court (Wiscasset, Billings, J.) in favor of Gustav Konitzky in this adverse possession and quiet title action. Levis asserts several errors and abuses of discretion by the trial court over the course of the six years that this litigation was pending, including, inter alia, that the court abused its discretion in vacating a default judgment entered against unknown defendants¹ and erred in granting summary judgment to Konitzky.² We conclude that none of the court's rulings constitutes abuse of discretion or legal error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] On April 27, 2009, James Levis filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and quiet title in the District Court (Wiscasset), claiming title to an approximately 125-foot by 100-foot section of mudflat on the southern side of McCaffrey's Brook in Bristol by adverse possession and by deed from his ex-wife.³ Levis named "J. Henry Cartland, his heirs and assigns" (the Cartland heirs) as defendants and Gustav Konitzky, an abutting neighbor and boat-builder, as a party in interest.⁴

[¶3] Cartland, who acquired title to the mudflat and an adjoining lot on January 1, 1890, was the last known owner of record. The Cartland heirs were served by publication, and, on October 16, 2009, Levis filed a motion for a default and default judgment as to the Cartland heirs because none had appeared in the case. The court (Worth, J.) entered a default judgment againstthe heirs on October 28, 2009. The order specifically stated that it did not affect Konitzky's rights.

[¶4] For the next several years, Levis and Konitzky engaged in a procedural entanglement of dueling motions, with Levis attempting to establish that Konitzky had no cognizable interest in the mudflat and Konitzky attempting to defeat Levis's quiet title and adverse possession claims. Relevant to this appeal, in December 2010, Konitzky filed a motion to set aside the default judgment against the Cartland heirs, alleging that he had located a Cartland heir who had transferred her interest in the property to Konitzky. In February 2011, the court (Tucker, J.) held a hearing and denied the motion because it was not filed within the one-year deadline specified in M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and because Konitzky had "not presented evidence of reasons that Rule 60(b)(6) should apply."

[¶5] Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 59(e), Konitzky filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to set aside the default judgment, contending that he had not received notice of the hearing and that because the default judgment was not final—it had not settled the matter as to him—the court's application of M.R. Civ. P. 60(b) was in error.

[¶6] The court granted Konitzky's motion and, in June 2011, held an evidentiary hearing at which Konitzky presented a 2010 release deed from Margaret Sue Tennant Jones, an alleged heir of Cartland, conveying any interest she had in the property to him. The court entered an order vacating the default judgment, opining that Konitzky's discovery of an heir and the subsequent assignment could make him an assignee, not just a party in interest. The court concluded that the default judgment was not a final judgment because the entire case had not been resolved, see M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1); thus, Rule 60(b)(2) and its one-year deadline for newly discovered evidence did not apply. See M.R. Civ. P. 55(c).

[¶7] Citing the quiet title statute, 14 M.R.S. §§ 6651-6663 (2015), Levis filed a motion to modify the order vacating the default judgment. The court denied the motion but noted that none of the Cartland heirs had filed an answer or otherwise appeared in the action, and Konitzky had not entered an appearance pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 6653 as an assignee of a named defendant, and it extended the time for formally answering the original complaint until September 2, 2011. See 14 M.R.S. §§ 6654, 6656. By a subsequent order dated August 31, 2011, the court extended the deadline "for a thirty-day period."

[¶8] On September 29, 2011, Konitzky entered an appearance, pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 6653, as a defendant to the original action based on the conveyance from Tennant as well as conveyances from additional alleged heirs. In November 2011, Levis filed several motions, including a motion for default against Konitzky as a party in interest and defendant, contending that Konitzky failed to comply with several rules of civil procedure and abide by court timelines. The court held a hearing on Levis's motions and denied them all.

[¶9] Discovery continued between the parties, and in December 2013, Konitzky filed a request for leave to file a motion for summary judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56(b). The court (Billings, J.) granted the request three days later. Levis filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that (1) Konitzky had waived any right to argue that summary judgment in his favor was warranted, (2) the court had granted Konitzky's request four days before Levis had received a copy of it, and (3) a motion for summary judgment would delay trial. The court did not address Levis's motion. Two weeks later, Konitzky filed a motion for summary judgment, which Levis opposed with both argument and opposing statements of material fact. After considering all of the filings on the motion for summary judgment, the court determined that none of the facts disputed by the parties was material to the legal issue presented by Levis's complaint and granted the motion in an order entered on March 12, 2014.

[¶10] Levis both appealed to us and filed motions for findings of fact and for reconsideration in the trial court. We dismissed the appeal as interlocutory, concluding that the order was not a final judgment, see M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1), because it did not adjudicate Levis's pending claim against the Cartland heirs. On January 22, 2015, Levis filed, among other things, his third motion for default judgment against all heirs, assigns, or grantees of Cartland "who have failed to file an appearance and Answer in this action," contending that, other than Konitzky identifying himself as a defendant, no other heir or assign had ever filed an answer or entered an appearance.

[¶11] In May 2015, the court denied Levis's motion, stating that because the Cartland heirs "did appear and defend in the case through Konitzky" as an assignee of Cartland's interest, default judgment was not warranted; and because all claims had been adjudicated, the summary judgment was a final judgment. The court also stated that the summary judgment in Konitzky's favor did not establish title to the mudflat—it simply established that, in light of uncontroverted facts relating to Konitzky's regular use of the mudflat, Levis could not meet the prima facie elements of his adverse possession or quiet title actions. Levis timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶12] Levis presents five issues for our review. He contends that the court erred or abused its discretion by (1) setting aside the default judgment entered against the Cartland heirs in October 2009; (2) denying his November 2011 motion for default against Konitzky after Konitzky allegedly failed to comply with a court order and the rules of civil procedure; (3) granting leave for Konitzky to file a motion for summary judgment in December 2013; (4) granting summary judgment in favor of Konitzky in March 2014; and (5) denying his motion for default in May 2015. Finding no abuse of discretion in the court's actions in setting aside the default judgment or denying Levis's motion for default, we do not discuss those issues further. We address in turn the court's actions in allowing Konitzky to file a motion for summary judgment in December 2013, granting summary judgment in favor of Konitzky in March 2014, and denying Levis's motion for default in May 2015.

A. Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment

[¶13] Levis argues that the court abused its discretion when it granted Koniztky leave to file a motion for summary judgment, where Konitzky's request was made years after the deadline stated in the initial scheduling order and where the court granted the request before Levis had an opportunity to respond. He argues that pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 6(b), the court could not grant Konitzky's request absent a showing of excusable neglect. Because the trial court was "best positioned to evaluate the circumstances of the case," Johnson v. Carleton, 2001 ME 12, ¶ 10, 765 A.2d 571, we review its decision to allow Konitzky to file his summary judgment motion for an abuse of discretion, id.; see Dalton v. Quinn, 2010 ME 120, ¶ 6, 8 A.3d 670.

[¶14] Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides, in pertinent part:

When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion . . . (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect . . . .

We have applied Rule 6(b)'s "excusable neglect" standard in a number of cases in which we examined a trial court's decision to grant or deny a party's request to file a motion or pleading after the deadline for such filing had passed. None of these cases involved a motion for leave to file a dispositive motion such as a motion for summary judgment.⁵

[¶15] The Maine Rules of Civil Procedure "shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action." M.R. Civ. P. 1; see Merrifield v. Hadlock, 2009 ME 1, ¶ 6, 961 A.2d 1107 ("[T]he overall purpose of the Rules of Civil Procedure . . . is to ensure the...