Flaherty v. Muther
17 A.3d 663
| Me. | 2011Background
- Muther and Woods challenge a superior court order requiring gate removal and surveillance cameras at an easement across their lot, a dispute already appealed in Flaherty I.
- While Flaherty I was on appeal, neighboring J-Lot owners sought costs and Rule 37(c) attorney fees for responses to requests for admission; the trial court awarded $16,440 in attorney fees.
- Muther and Woods appealed the post-judgment Rule 37(c) award; the issue is whether the trial court had authority to award attorney fees during the pendency of the Flaherty I appeal.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that it vacated the award and remanded because Flaherty I remanded for factual/legal determinations on the surveillance cameras, which could affect the basis for the fee award.
- The judgment awarding Rule 37(c) attorney fees is vacated and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to award Rule 37(c) fees during appeal | Muther/Woods contend the court lacked authority to award fees while Flaherty I was pending. | J-Lot owners contend the court could award fees under Rule 37(c) during pendency. | Court had jurisdiction to consider the fee application during the appeal. |
| Effect of remand in Flaherty I on Rule 37(c) award | Fees should reflect the final outcome after remand of issues related to surveillance cameras. | Award stands independently of Flaherty I remand. | Award vacated and remanded for appropriate consideration after final judgment in Flaherty I. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muther v. Broad Cove Shore Ass'n, 2009 ME 37 (Me. 2009) (earlier proceedings on easement dispute and related rulings)
- Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 32 (Me. 2011) (addressed prior appellate issues and fee-related questions; remanded for camera/surveillance determinations)