Pamela Haskell v. Dusty Haskell
2017 ME 91
| Me. | 2017Background
- Pamela filed for divorce after 39 years of marriage; Dusty was served and informed he was responsible for keeping the court apprised of his address.
- Interim hearing (Aug 10, 2015): Dusty’s counsel withdrew; Dusty did not file financial statements or attend; court issued interim order awarding Pamela exclusive possession of the home, interim spousal support ($1,000/week), and attorney fees.
- Final hearing (Sept 28, 2015): Dusty again did not appear; court admitted Pamela’s evidence (including recent joint tax return) and entered a final divorce judgment awarding Pamela $6,000/month spousal support for life and dividing assets.
- Dusty learned of the judgment shortly after and, represented by new counsel, moved for a new trial (M.R. Civ. P. 59) and relief from judgment (M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)), claiming he did not receive notice and lacked opportunity to be heard.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied relief, finding Dusty failed to update his address, neglected his mail and court notices, did not file required financial affidavits, and thus bore responsibility for his absence. Dusty appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pamela) | Defendant's Argument (Dusty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was warranted for excusable neglect, mistake, or misconduct | Court should deny relief because Dusty had notice and failed to act | Dusty argued Pamela contributed to his ignorance of dates and he was deprived of opportunity to be heard | Denied: court did not abuse discretion; Dusty’s inattention and failure to update address/mail monitoring precluded relief |
| Whether default procedures satisfied due process | Court provided notice by mail and scheduling; Pamela submitted evidence at hearing | Dusty contended he effectively lacked notice and thus judgment denied his due-process right to be heard | Held that notice and opportunity to be heard were provided; Dusty ignored notices and counsel’s advice |
| Whether spousal-support award was supported by evidence and Dusty’s absence rendered award unsupported | Pamela’s evidence (age, education, work history, joint tax return showing sufficient income disparity) supported amount | Dusty argued no admissible evidence established his ability to pay because he did not attend | Held support award affirmed as within court’s discretion and supported by Pamela’s evidence (including joint tax return) |
| Whether court abused discretion in denying Rule 59/new trial relief | Pamela: trial record supports judgment; no prejudice shown | Dusty sought new trial for lack of notice and absence of his evidence | Held: Dusty did not challenge Rule 59 ruling on appeal; denial of relief was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooldridge v. Wooldridge, 940 A.2d 1082 (Me. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) denial)
- Ezell v. Lawless, 955 A.2d 202 (Me. 2008) (excusable neglect requires reasonable excuse and meritorious defense)
- Foley v. Adam, 638 A.2d 718 (Me. 1994) (burden on movant to produce competent evidence supporting motion for relief)
- Ringuette v. Ringuette, 594 A.2d 1076 (Me. 1991) (standard for vacating judgments under Rule 59/remedy considerations)
- McLeod v. Macul, 139 A.3d 920 (Me. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion review framework)