[¶ 1] Stеven G. Johnson appeals from an order of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Mills, J.) granting an attachment and an attachment by trustee proсess for back rent owed to Southern Maine Properties Co., Inc. (SMP). On appeal, Johnson argues that the court violated his constitutionаl right to a hearing by granting the attachments without oral argument. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the Superi- or Court.
[¶ 2] Johnson is the principal sharеholder and chief executive officer of Occupational Medicine Associates (OMA). In 1988 SMP and Johnson entered into a five-year lease of office space in Portland. In 1992 the parties signed a five-year lease extension. In October 1996, SMP and OMA began negotiating ovеr another amendment to the lease in which OMA would become the tenant to the premises and assume Johnson’s obligations. An amendment was drаfted substituting OMA for Johnson, but negotiations failed when Johnson refused to personally guarantee the rental obligation and none of the partiеs signed the proposed amendment.
[¶3] Johnson continued in possession of the premises after the expiration of the 1992 lease. In January 1998 the court issued a writ of possession granting SMP the right to immediate possession. SMP then filed a complaint and a motion for an attachment and an attachment by trustee process in the amount of $104,839.89. In his answer, Johnson asserted that SMP had either relieved him of his obligations pursuant to the 1992 lease or had agreed to its novation and the substitution of OMA as the tenant.
[¶4] On February 8, 1998, without oral argument, the Superior Court (Cumberland County'', Mills, J.) granted SMP’s motion for an attachment and an attachment by trastee process. On February 12 Johnson moved for reconsideration of the court’s ordеr which the court denied on March 14. On April 3 Johnson appealed.
I. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TIMELINESS OF APPEAL
[¶ 5] SMP argues that Johnson did not file a timely appeal. In response, Johnson argues that the filing of his motion for reconsideration tolled the running of the appeal period. We agree and conclude that Johnson’s appeal was timely. The Maine Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for a motion for reconsideratiоn, however, we treat such a motion as a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 59(e) or as a motion for relief from judgment pursuаnt to M.R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Madore v. Maine Land Use Regulation Comm’n,
II. ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR ATTACHMENT
[¶ 6] Johnson argues that the court violated his due process right to a hearing when it ordered the attachment without oral argument. We disagree.
[¶ 7] A prejudgment attachment violates due process “if the owner of the property attachеd has not had prior notice of the attachment and opportunity at a meaningful time to be heard concerning whether the attachment would arbitrarily or unfairly deprive him of his property.”
Perkins v. McGonagle,
[¶ 8] Notwithstanding the requirement of M.R. Civ. P. 4A(e) that the court hold a “hearing,” we have held that a formal hearing with oral argument is not required in a motion for attachment.
See Atlantic Heating Co. v. Lavin,
[¶ 9] The vacating of an order entered after a procedural error is not autоmatic. To vacate such an order, this Court must determine that it was entered after a process that was “inconsistent with substantial justice.” M.R. Civ. P. 61. We have held that an appellant, to be successful, must demonstrate both error and prejudice resulting to the appellant from the clаimed error.
See Phillips v. Eastern Me. Med. Ctr.,
[¶ 10] Finally, we conclude that Johnson’s remaining claims are without merit. 4
*1258 The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. M.R. Civ. P. 59(e) provides:
Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter оr amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.
. M.R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides in pertinent part:
Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party’s legal representative frоm a final judgment, order, or proceeding ....
. The Pilot Project directing all civil matters to be assigned to a single justice was established August 12, 1993 by order оf the Chief Justice of the Superior Court (Delahanty, CJ.). Administrative Order SJC-323, Special Assignment of Civil Cases in Cumberland and Somerset Counties (Aug. 12, 1993). The Chief Justice of thе Superior Court (Co/e, CJ.) approved and extended the Pilot Project and the local rules on September 17, 1996. Amendment to Administrative Order SJC-323, Sрecial Assignment of Civil Cases in Cumberland County (Sept. 17, 1996). The local rules include the Order Supplementing the Expedited Pre-Trial Order, providing that "[a]ll non-disрositive motions will be decided by the court without oral argument.” Order Supplementing Expedited Pre-Trial Order, revised June 1, Í997, and June 9, 1998.
. Johnson’s principal remaining claim is that SMP filed a supplemental affidavit and memorandum of law addressing deficiencies in SMP’s motion called to the court's attеntion in Johnson’s response. Johnson claims that he was not *1258 given an adequate opportunity to respond to SMP’s supplemental affidavit and memorandum of law prior to the court’s ruling. Any deficien-cíes or prejudice was remedied when the court reconsidered its order in response to Johnson’s motion.