Bouchard v. Merrow

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: May 5, 2023
• Docket: OXFap-22-8
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT OXFORD, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-22-8

JULIE BOUCHARD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) RICHARD MERROW ) ) Defendant. )

Defendant Richard Merrow appeals the default judgment entered against

him in the District Court. For the following reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In March 2022, Plaintiff Julie Bouchard filed a statement of claim against

the defendant. She sought $4,000 to compensate her son for costs he incurred

raising emu chicks pursuant to a "joint venture" with the defendant.

The record reflects that the defendant was notified of the statement of claim

against him by certified mail, and that the clerk of the cou1·t sent him notice of a

hearing scheduled for November 3, 2022. The defendant failed to appear at the

hearing. The District Court (South Paris, Churchill, J.) entered a default judgment

against him in the amount of $4,000 plus costs. See M.R.S.C.P. 8(b).

Upon receiving notice of this judgment, the defendant moved to vacate the

judgment on the basis that he was "not notified of the date of this hearing, therefore

did not attend." See Richter v. Ercolini, 2010 ME 38, ,r 11, 994 A.2d 404 ("In cases in

which a defaulted defendant failed to appear before the entry of a default judgment,

1 [Law Court] decisions require that the defaulted defendant file a Rule 60(b) motion

in the trial court before seeking appellate review."). The District Court denied the

motion on November 30, 2022, explaining that "[n]otice was provided to the proper

address." The defendant filed the instant appeal on December 1, 2022. See

M.R.S.C.P. ll(a).

DISCUSSION

The Small Claims Act was created "for the purpose of providing a simple,

speedy and informal court procedure for the resolution of small claims." 14 M.R.S.

§ 7481 (2023). "Only if a defendant appears and defends in Small Claims Court can

the merits of a plaintiffs claim be tested and a judgment for the defendant be

possible." H & H Oil Co. v. Dineen, 557 A.2d 604, 605 (Me. 1989).

In his appeal of the default judgment, the defendant has asserted that the

District Com·t committed an error oflaw. See M.R.S.C.P. ll(d)(2); Taylor v. Walker,

2017 ME 218, ,r,r 5-6, 17 3 A.3d 539 (noting that in the absence of a jury trial

request, the Superior Court's review of a small claims judgment is limited to alleged

errors of law or abuses of discretion). Specifically, he argues that he did not receive

proper notice of the hearing date and should have been allowed to defend himself

against the plaintiffs claim.

"What actions are legally sufficient to constitute effective se1'Vice of

process ... is a legal question[.]" Maguire Constr., Inc. v. Forster, 2006 ME 112, ,r 8,

905 A.2d 813. Here, the record demonstrates that the plaintiff complied with the

2 service requirements of Maine Rule of Small Claims Procedure ("Rule") 4(a)(2).1 The

clerk of court thereafter sent the notice of hearing to the defendant at the address

provided on the statement of claim form, as required by Rule 4(f). The District

Court accordingly did not err in determining that notice of hearing was properly

given.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

The clerk is directed to incorporate this order on the docket by reference

pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

DATED: Julia MJ!,ipez Justice, Superior Com·

1 A plaintiff may serve a defendant "[b]y mailing a copy of the statement of claim, first class, postage prepaid, registered or certified, restricted delivery, return receipt requested, to the person to be served." M.R.S.C.P. 4(a)(2). "Service by this method is complete when the registered or certified mail is delivered and the receipt is signed by the person to be served, provided that the receipt is returned to the sender." Id.