Thomas v. BFC Marine/Bath Fuel Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 2004
• Parties: Robert THOMAS et al. v. BFC MARINE/BATH FUEL CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

843 A.2d 3

2004 ME 27

Robert THOMAS et al. v. BFC MARINE/BATH FUEL CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Submitted on briefs: January 22, 2004.

Decided: March 3, 2004.

Roy T. Pierce, Esq., Jeffrey W. Peters, Esq., Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq., Preti Flaherty Beliveau Pachios & Haley, LLC, Bath, for plaintiffs. Carl W. Stinson, Esq., Jessica R. Avery, Esq., Stinson Law Offices, Bath, for defendant.

Panel: CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.

CLIFFORD, J.

[¶ 1] The District Court (West Bath, Field, J.) entered a small claims judgment in favor of Robert and Kathryn Thomas and against BFC Marine/Bath Fuel Co. pursuant to Rule 11 of the Maine Rules of Small Claims Procedure. BFC appealed from the small claims judgment to the Superior Court and requested a jury trial. In the Superior Court (Sagadahoc County, Atwood, J.), a jury found in favor of BFC. The Thomases appeal to us from the Superior Court judgment. Because we agree with the Thomases' contention on appeal that BFC's appeal to the Superior Court was untimely, and that the Superior Court was without jurisdiction to hear that appeal and the District Court judgment should not be disturbed, we vacate the judgment entered in the Superior Court, and remand to the Superior Court for the entry of a judgment of dismissal.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[¶ 2] The Thomases filed a small claims action seeking to recover damages for a defective engine they purchased from BFC. The parties were self-represented at a hearing before the District Court. The District Court entered a small claims judgment for the Thomases in the amount of $4500, plus costs. BFC then obtained counsel and filed a motion to amend and for findings of fact pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52 and M.R. Civ. P. 59.¹ The District Court denied the motion, concluding that "[it] was not the intent of the Legislature to generate repeat litigation, where parties come into the Small Claims forum, then `lawyer up' (to borrow an expression from current airwaves drama) after an unsatisfactory result, to re-litigate the entire case over again."

[¶ 3] Pursuant to M.R.S.C.P. 11, and within thirty days of the District Court's order denying its motion pursuant to Rules 52 and 59, but not until a full ninety days after the District Court entered judgment in favor of the Thomases in the small claims action, BFC filed a notice of appeal and a request for a jury trial de novo in the Superior Court. A jury trial was held in the Superior Court, and the jury found in favor of BFC. The Thomases then filed this appeal to this Court.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶ 4] The Thomases contend that BFC's appeal to the Superior Court was ineffective because BFC's motions made pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52 and 59 do not extend the thirty-day appeal period provided in M.R.S.C.P. 11(a), and therefore, BFC's appeal to the Superior Court was untimely. BFC contends that, pursuant to M.R.S.C.P. 15, a small claims litigant can file motions pursuant to Rules 52 and 59, and the thirty-day appeal period is tolled by the filing of those motions. BFC also contends that motions made pursuant to Rules 52 and 59 do not contravene the purpose of small claims procedure because such motions provide a simple and efficient means to address a small claims judgment.

[¶ 5] BFC contends that the Thomases failed to object to the timeliness of BFC's appeal pursuant to M.R.S.C.P. 11, and therefore, they cannot raise this issue on appeal. Generally, issues raised for the first time on appeal are not preserved. MP Assocs. v. Liberty, 2001 ME 22, ¶ 18, 771 A.2d 1040, 1046. In Town of S. Berwick Planning Bd. v. Maineland, Inc., however, we stated that time requirements for taking an appeal are jurisdictional; if a party files a late appeal and there is no tolling or valid enlargement of time, the court never acquires jurisdiction. 409 A.2d 688, 689 (Me.1980). See also Davric Me. Corp. v. Bangor Historic Track, Inc., 2000 ME 102, ¶ 11, 751 A.2d 1024, 1030

("Statutory limitations on appeal periods are jurisdictional."); Torrey v. Full Gospel Church of Searsport, 394 A.2d 276, 278 (Me.1978) (stating that the timeliness of an appeal to the Superior Court goes to the Superior Court's jurisdiction to take the appeal). "Jurisdictional claims respecting subject matter present overriding issues which courts may examine at any stage of the proceedings, whether at the trial level or on appeal and whether called to the attention of the court or noted by the court on its own motion." Jones v. York, 444 A.2d 382, 384 (Me.1982). Accordingly, because the timeliness of an appeal is jurisdictional, and matters of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, the Thomases have not failed to preserve the issue for appeal.

[¶ 6] We have previously addressed this issue, albeit under slightly different circumstances, and concluded that motions such as those filed pursuant to Rule 52 and Rule 59 are not appropriately filed in small claims cases. In Boothbay Register, Inc. v. Murphy, Murphy filed a Rule 59 motion for a new trial in a small claims proceeding. 415 A.2d 1079, 1079 (Me.1980). We applied former District Court Civil Rule 81(a)(1) restrictively, and concluded that "[t]he [District Court Civil Rules] do not apply to anything that affects the rendition of final judgment in the small claims court, such as a motion to amend or a motion for findings or for a new trial." Id. at 1080. We said that the purpose of the small claims statute, to provide "a simple, speedy and informal procedure," mandated this conclusion. Id. (quoting 14 M.R.S.A. § 7452 (1980), the predecessor to 14 M.R.S.A. § 7481 (2003)). [¶ 7] At the time Murphy was decided, D.C. Civ. R. 81(a)(1) read:

These rules do not apply to the beginning and conducting of the following actions and proceedings in the District Court:

(1) Actions under the statutory small claims procedure except as to proceedings subsequent to the rendition of judgment.

Murphy was decided before the Rules of Small Claims Procedure became effective. When the Small Claims Rules became effective, D.C. Civ. R. 81(a)(1) was amended to read:

These rules do not apply to the beginning and conducting of the following actions and proceedings in the District Court:

(1) Actions under the statutory small claims procedure except as incorporated expressly or by analogy in the Maine Rules of Small Claims Procedure.

The exact language of the amended D.C. Civ. R. 81(a)(1) now appears in M.R. Civ. P. 81(b)(2)(A).² We have not determined the effect that the Maine Rules of Small Claims Procedure and the amendment to D.C. Civ. R. 81(a)(1), now M.R. Civ. P. 81(b)(2)(A), may have had on the holding in Murphy.

[¶ 8] The purpose of small claims procedure has not changed since Murphy, see 14 M.R.S.A. § 7481, and has been reiterated in M.R.S.C.P. 1.³ What has changed since Murphy is the adoption of Rules 9 and 15 in the Maine Rules of Small Claims Procedure. Rule 9 provides: "On the written request of a party setting forth reasons showing good cause, the court may, with or without hearing, correct, or relieve a party from, the effect of a judgment in accordance with Rule 60 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure." The advisory committee's note to Rule 9 states: "This rule incorporates the provisions of M.R.C.P. 60 for correction of or relief from a judgment, specifying a simplified and flexible procedure for the request. The rule applies to default judgments, as well as to judgments on the merits." M.R.S.C.P. 9 original advisory committee's note.

[¶ 9] Rule 15 provides, in pertinent part:

When no procedure is specifically prescribed by these rules, the court shall proceed in a manner consistent with analogous provisions of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure . . . bearing in mind the purpose of the Small Claims Court Act to provide "a simple, speedy and informal court procedure for the resolution of small claims."

The advisory committee's note to Rule 15 states:

This rule is derived from M.R.C.P. 81(f), with two significant differences: (1) Under the present rule when no procedure is applicable, the court should look first to analogous provisions of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and District Court Civil Rules before developing a different mode of proceeding to deal with a situation not covered herein. (2) The present rule emphasizes the special purposes of small claims proceedings by direct quotation of the Small Claims Court Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 7481. See also Rule 1. The court should not use Rule 15 to import into the Rules of Small Claims Procedure procedural devices that are not presently found in these rules or that could impose burdens upon litigants that would violate the salutary purposes of the Small Claims Court Act and these rules.

M.R.S.C.P. 15 original advisory committee's note (emphasis added).⁴

[¶ 10] In Melder v. Carreiro, we construed M.R.S.C.P. 15 as incorporating M.R. Civ. P. 91(e) into small claims proceedings. 541 A.2d 1293, 1294 (Me.1988). We concluded that although there was no rule of small claims procedure covering the filing of a motion by a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal to the Superior Court from the District Court, in a small claims proceeding, the District Court retained its inherent power to waive such fees. Id.

[¶ 11] There are three reasons, however, why the adoption of the Maine Rules of Small Claims Procedure and the subsequent change to D.C. Civ. R. 81(a)(1), now M.R. Civ. P. 81(b)(2)(A), do not change the holding in Murphy that Rule 52 and Rule 59 motions are not appropriately filed in small claims proceedings in the District Court. First, the purpose of small claims procedure has not changed. Contrary to BFC's contention, small claims proceedings are unique and different from other proceedings conducted in the District Court. The Maine Rules of Small Claims Procedure reflect that the procedure in a small claims proceeding is informal. M.R.S.C.P. 1. The Maine Rules of Civil Procedure do not reflect such a...