Davimos v. Halle, CUMcv-13-119

Background

Davimos obtained a New York judgment (Sept. 18, 2008) against Halle for $1,582,657.53 (breach of contract and fraud); a certified copy was filed in Maine on March 14, 2013 under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
Halle moved in Maine to reopen and vacate (Rule 60(b)) claiming Davimos committed perjury/fraud at the New York trial and pointing to attorney billing records he says prove it.
New York court (Judge Bransten) denied Halle's motion to vacate; Halle announced an intent to appeal but the appeal period had not started when the Maine motions were decided.
The Maine court denied Halle’s motion to vacate, holding the alleged fraud was intrinsic and the evidence Halle now relies on was in his possession at trial (so not newly discoverable), and Rule 60(b) cannot be used to relitigate matters he had a fair opportunity to raise.
The court granted Halle a limited stay of enforcement in Maine (until June 20, 2014 or final New York resolution) to avoid potentially undoing enforcement if New York later vacated the judgment; no bond was posted when required.
Davimos sought and the court later ordered an amended writ of execution to apply New York’s statutory post-judgment interest rate (rather than Maine’s) when issuing the writ.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Maine should vacate the foreign (NY) judgment for fraud	Davimos: Maine must give full faith and credit to New York judgment; cannot vacate what New York refused to vacate	Halle: Judgment procured by fraud; Maine may vacate foreign judgment for fraud under §8003 and Rule 60(b)	Denied — relief barred because alleged fraud was intrinsic and evidence was in Halle's possession at trial; Rule 60(b) not available to relitigate issues he could have raised then
Whether to stay enforcement of the foreign judgment in Maine pending New York proceedings	Davimos: No adequate grounds under 14 M.R.S. §8005 to stay enforcement	Halle: Stay warranted pending final resolution of his New York post-judgment motion/appeal	Granted — stay until June 20, 2014 or final New York resolution, to prevent needless enforcement if New York later overturns judgment
Which state’s post-judgment interest rate applies to domesticated foreign judgment	Davimos: New York's statutory post-judgment interest rate should apply (as rendered)	Halle: Once filed, the NY judgment is a new Maine judgment; Maine's post-judgment interest rate should apply	Amended writ ordered to incorporate New York’s statutory post-judgment interest rate (majority approach/follow rendering state)
Whether Rule 60(b) relief is available based on documents that existed at trial	Davimos: Rule 60(b) requires evidence not available or discoverable by due diligence at trial	Halle: Records discovered later (faxed in 2000) prove fraud and justify vacatur	Held against Halle — documents were in his possession at time of trial; cannot use Rule 60(b) to relitigate matters he had fair opportunity to litigate

Key Cases Cited

Estate of Paine v. Searle, 609 A.2d 1150 (Me. 1992) (collateral attack for fraud requires clear and convincing proof that court was made an instrument of injustice)
Roger Edwards, LLC v. Fiddes & Son Ltd., 427 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(b)(3) fraud standard requires showing substantial interference with ability to prepare for or proceed at trial)
Lundborg v. Phoenix Leasing, Inc., 91 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 1996) (Maine law does not rigidly adhere to extrinsic/intrinsic fraud labels)
Society of Lloyd's v. Baker, 673 A.2d 1336 (Me. 1996) (discussion of permitting relief generally only for extrinsic-type fraud)
George P. Reintjes Co. v. Riley Stoker Corp., 72 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 1995) (Rule 60(b) does not permit relitigation of issues a party had fair opportunity to raise)
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (trial court’s power to stay proceedings to manage administration of justice)
Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1935) (noting limited circumstances where a sister-state judgment may be disregarded, possibly for fraud)
Moholland v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 746 A.2d 362 (Me. 2000) (describing post-judgment interest as an enforcement tool)