Graham v. Brown
26 A.3d 823
Me.2011Background
- Graham and Brown began cohabiting in April 2003, and Brown engaged in frequent physical and emotional abuse from 2004 to 2006.
- Abuse included throwing Graham, injuring her, assaulting her in various ways, and harming Graham's son and pet; these acts were escalating and pervasive.
- In 2005 Graham sought psychotherapist treatment for PTSD, anxiety, depression, and insomnia caused by Brown's actions, affecting her ability to work as a massage therapist.
- On April 8, 2010, Graham served Brown with a summons and complaint; Brown did not answer, and a default was entered on May 7, 2010.
- A damages hearing was conducted with Brown appearing pro se; the court explained liability was already resolved and focused on damages.
- The court awarded Graham $50,000 in compensatory damages (including $9,600 for therapy and $14,000 for lost income) and $5,000 in punitive damages for IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default should have been set aside | Graham argues Brown failed to show good cause for setting aside default. | Brown contends the court abused its discretion by not setting aside the default. | Court did not abuse discretion; no good cause shown. |
| Whether a default judgment on liability was proper for IIED | Graham contends liability for IIED was established by default and properly treated as such. | Brown argues the court erred in entering default judgment on liability for IIED. | Liability established by default; judgment on damages proper without further findings. |
| Whether damages are supported and not excessive | Graham asserts compensatory and punitive damages are supported by the record. | Brown argues damages are excessive and not supported by evidence. | Damages upheld; compensatory supported by evidence; punitive damages within permissible range. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24 (ME 2011) (deferential review of damages; punitive damages require only some evidence)
- Lyman v. Huber, 2010 ME 139 (ME 2010) (liability can be resolved by default; findings focus on damages)
- Palleschi v. Palleschi, 1998 ME 3 (ME 1998) (damages for IIED need not be proved to mathematical certainty; intent and damages base)
- Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24 (ME 2011) (punitive damages framework; ratio considerations)
- 25? (Degenhardt v. EWE Ltd. P'ship is cited as 2011 ME 23, 13 A.3d 792), 2011 ME 23 (ME 2011) (associate authority for factual sufficiency and standard of review)