Beckerman v. Conant

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, SS. LOCATION: AUGUSTA
DOCKET NO. RE-12-63

PETER M. BECKERMAN

ee
ee
Plaintiff,

ee
ee
ORDER

ee
Vv.

eee
RICKY CONANT and MONICA

ee
CONANT,

ee
ee
ee
Defendants.

Before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
and/or for Reconsideration Under Rule 59(e). On March 10, 2023, the court

issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for contempt pursuant to M.R. Civ.

P. 66(d) and imposed a remedial sanction in the form of “reasonable attorney

fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff arising out of or in connection with the

motion for contempt... .” In the pending motion, Defendants essentially seek

clarification as whether the attorney fee award is an integral part of the court’s
order, arguing that the attorney fee claim was not integral. See M.R. Civ. P.

54(b)(2) (“In an action in which there is a claim for attorney fees, a judgment

entered on all other claims shall be final as to those claims unless the court

expressly finds that the claim for attorney fees is integral to the relief sought.”).

The court clarifies that the attorney fee award is integral to the court’s
order and the sanction to be imposed for Defendants’ contempt. MacDonald v.

MacDonald, 2012 Me. Unpub. LEXIS 108. As the attorney fee amount remains

unresolved, final judgment has yet to issue. Jd. Thus, Defendants’ motion—to

the extent it seeks to amend judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 59(e)—is
denied, as the “rules do not allow a motion to alter or amend pursuant to M.R.

Civ. P. 59(e) .. . in the absence of a final judgment.” Mortg. Elec. Registration

Sys. v. Saunders, 2010 ME 79, 7 21, 2 A.3d 289. To the extent Defendants

seek leave to file an objection to the Affidavit of Plaintiff's Attorney Regarding

Fees and Expenses Incurred in Litigating this Case, that request is granted.

The entry is: Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

part. Defendants’ objection to the Affidavit of Plaintiff's Attorney Regarding Fees

and Expenses shall be filed within 14 days from the date of this Order.

Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be due no later than 7 days after Plaintiff is served
with Defendants’ objection.

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket of this

case by reference in accordance with M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Date: May 25, 2023

Debofah P. Cashman
Justice, Maine Superior Court