Shirley Gauthier v. Jacqueline E. Gerrish
116 A.3d 461
Me.2015Background
- Gerrishs acquired the Alfred, Maine property; Roland Gerrish created the East Side Trust in 2008 with Shirley as remainder beneficiary and Jacqueline as income beneficiary; Julie Gerrish holds a one-quarter interest via a remainder; Roland died in 2011 with ongoing disputes over use, maintenance, and partition of the property; Shirley filed an equitable partition action against the Trustee, Jacqueline, and Gerrish Corp. in 2013; the Trustee did not answer and defaults were entered against Jacqueline and Gerrish Corp. in late 2013/early 2014 after communications about counsel withdrawal and a court stay; a February 2014 stay order warned of consequences for failing to obtain new counsel but there was no direct notice to Jacqueline or the Corporation; in April 2014, Shirley sought default against Jacqueline and the Corporation and the court signed an order granting default before the parties responded, later docketed; May–June 2014, Jacqueline and Gerrish Corp. moved to set aside the default and sought to join Julie as a necessary party (Rule 19), while Shirley opposed the requests; on August 20–25, 2014, the court denied the motion to set aside and to join Julie, and entered a default judgment for Shirley that granted broad partition relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Julie Gerrish must be joined as a party under Rule 19(a). | Gauthier: Julie has a one-quarter property interest; complete relief cannot be accorded without Julie; joinder mandatory. | Gerrish: Julie not necessary for the relief sought; party dynamics should not compel joinder. | Julie is a necessary party; joinder mandatory; court erred in ruling otherwise. |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before entry of the default judgment. | Gauthier sought a default judgment without a full evidentiary hearing. | Gerrish: no hearing needed given admitted default. | An evidentiary hearing was required to craft a remedy; judgment vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Poland v. T & M Mortg. Solutions, Inc., 2010 ME 2 (Me. 2010) (de novo review of Rule 19(a) interpretations; join or dismissal considerations)
- Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB v. Gile, 2001 ME 120 (Me. 2001) (implicit de novo standard for Rule 19(a) rulings and joinder issues)
- Larrabee v. Town of Knox, 2000 ME 15 (Me. 2000) (mandatory joinder when possible to avoid multiple suits or inconsistent results)
- Ireland v. Carpenter, 2005 ME 98 (Me. 2005) (evidentiary hearing may be required to determine scope of relief after default)
- Richter v. Ercolini, 2010 ME 38 (Me. 2010) (absent crosser, court not required to hold hearing where damages stipulated)
- Depositors Trust Co. v. Bruneau, 144 Me. 142, 66 A.2d 86 (Me. 1949) (marketable title concerns in partition actions)
- Efstathiou v. Payeur, 456 A.2d 891 (Me. 1983) (necessity of joining interests potentially affected by public boundary decisions)