John Knoblach v. Stacylee A. Morris
2017 ME 116
| Me. | 2017Background
- Knoblach was found in contempt by the Lewiston District Court for failing to pay spousal support per the divorce decree; the court imposed incarceration unless he paid the arrearage within a set time.
- Knoblach appealed the contempt judgment and the denial of his motions for reconsideration and for relief from judgment under M.R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b).
- Knoblach contended the contempt hearing was held one day too soon, violating the notice requirement in M.R. Civ. P. 66(d)(2)(C) (service no less than 10 days before the hearing) and M.R. Civ. P. 6(a) (calculation when deadline falls on Sunday).
- The District Court had authority to shorten the 10-day notice period, and the temporal notice rule is not jurisdictional.
- Knoblach did not move for a continuance after being served, either in his answer or at the hearing; he participated, presented evidence, and argued on the merits.
- On appeal he only argued his attorney was unavailable in the week before the hearing and did not identify any additional evidence he would have offered or how he was prejudiced by one fewer day to prepare.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Knoblach) | Defendant's Argument (Morris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether holding the contempt hearing one day before the end of the 10-day notice period violated due process/notice rules | Hearing occurred one day too soon under M.R. Civ. P. 66(d)(2)(C) and M.R. Civ. P. 6(a) | Court could order shorter notice; temporal rule not jurisdictional and no timely request for continuance | Court affirmed: any error in timing was not jurisdictional and did not warrant vacatur because Knoblach did not show prejudice |
| Whether failure to move for a continuance forfeits complaint about notice/timing | Denies waiver because notice period violated rules | Participation without objection and failure to seek continuance constitutes waiver; merits were litigated | Court affirmed: Knoblach’s participation and lack of timely objection/continuance undermined his claim |
| Whether unavailability of counsel shortly before hearing justifies relief or continuance | Counsel unavailable during week before hearing; this warranted more time | Knoblach did not show what additional evidence or different presentation would have been made | Court affirmed: mere counsel unavailability without showing prejudice insufficient to grant relief |
| Whether denial of motions for reconsideration/relief from judgment was an abuse of discretion | Motions should be granted due to notice defect | No prejudice shown; procedural rules permit shortened notice; merits considered | Court affirmed denial: procedural rulings were fundamentally fair and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 802 A.2d 999 (Me. 2002) (party claiming defective notice must show prejudice)
- Daud v. Abdullahi, 115 A.3d 77 (Me. 2015) (failure to retain counsel when time was sufficient is not a substantial reason to grant continuance)
- In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (procedural rulings affecting due process reviewed for fundamental fairness)