Steven M. McKeeman v. Christopher Duchaine, 2022 ME 23

Steven and Melinda McKeeman sued their landlord (CCLD, LLC and owner Christopher Duchaine) for breach of the statutory warranty of habitability and illegal eviction, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages.
The McKeemans moved for an ex parte TRO and a preliminary injunction; the court denied the TRO but held a preliminary injunction hearing the next day.
At the hearing the McKeemans asked for a separate merits hearing; the court issued an "Order on Plaintiffs’ Request for Preliminary Injunction" finding a breach of the warranty of habitability, ordering repairs, and denying motel-costs relief for lack of evidence; the order did not resolve all claims in the complaint.
Duchaine appeared at the hearing but did not file a written answer. More than a month later the McKeemans sought default judgment for failure to answer; the court denied default, stating that it had already issued a ruling on the merits and entered a final judgment.
The McKeemans appealed, arguing the court improperly consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits without notice, depriving them of a full opportunity to present evidence and pursue relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits without notice	McKeeman: consolidation occurred without notice, depriving opportunity to litigate merits	Duchaine: evidence was heard and court’s ruling addressed the complaint, so it effectively resolved merits	The court may consolidate only with clear on-the-record notice or party agreement; here there was no notice or stipulation, so consolidation was improper
Whether an after-the-fact consolidation satisfies M.R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2)	McKeeman: retroactive consolidation violates Rule 65(b)(2) and denies procedural fairness	Duchaine: (implicit) Rule allows consolidation before or after commencement	A post-hoc consolidation that was not clearly ordered before or during the hearing violates Rule 65(b)(2) and is untimely; notice must be early enough to allow presentation of evidence
Whether denial of default judgment was proper because the court already entered judgment on the merits	McKeeman: default should be considered because no written answer was filed	Duchaine: prior ruling on the merits negated basis for default	Denial of default based on an improper, retroactive consolidation was error; remand required for further proceedings including consideration of default request

John v. Louisiana, 757 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1985) (court cannot resolve merits from preliminary-injunction record absent clear consolidation)
Caribbean Produce Exch. Inc. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 893 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1989) (requires indisputably clear notice of consolidation)
Pughsley v. 3750 Lake Shore Drive Coop. Bldg., 463 F.2d 1055 (7th Cir. 1972) (notice must be timely to allow parties to present full evidence)
Aponte v. Calderon, 284 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 2002) (consolidation notice must permit time to assemble and present evidence)
Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (approves requirement that consolidation notice allow opportunity to be heard)
K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907 (1st Cir. 1989) (consolidation power limited by due process: fair notice and opportunity to be heard)
Summit Realty, Inc. v. Gipe, 315 A.2d 428 (Me. 1974) (where record shows both parties and court treated hearing as merits trial, consolidation may be inferred)
Bridges v. Caouette, 230 A.3d 1 (Me. 2020) (de novo review of court’s interpretation of procedural rules)