Brackett v. Thorne
This text of Brackett v. Thorne (Brackett v. Thorne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. RE-14-47
ELAINE P. BRACKETT, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v. ORDER
NICHOLAS THORNE, et al.,
Defendants
At issue in this case is whether or not a valid settlement agreement has been
reached between the parties which should be enforced, or whether the matter should
remain on the trial list. The Court has had an opportunity to carefully review all of the
materials submitted and concludes as follows.
The Court concludes that White v. Fleet Bank of Maine, 875 A.2d 680 (Me. 2005) is
instructive with respect to how to resolve this particular issue. In White the parties
engaged in mediation and reached what was purported to be a settlement of the claim.
Upon the drafting process the parties grew increasingly antagonistic and ultimately
were unable to finalize the documents. The Law Court reflected upon the idea that the
existence of any such settlement agreement resolving the case presents issues of fact,
which requires evidence.
Accordingly, this Court orders that this matter be set for a two hour evidentiary
hearing on the issue of whether or not a settlement agreement was reached, and what
the parties intent was with respect to any disputed elements of that settlement
agreement, including whether or not those provisions in dispute were stand alone provisiOns, or whether or not they materially affected whether the entire case had
settled.
Ten days prior to that hearing any party wishing to enforce the settlement
agreement shall submit electronically to the Clerk an e-mail version of a proposed
judgment, which includes the language requested in the proposed judgment as well as
the statutory language required by 14 M.R.S. §2401.
Dated: JunJ/, 2015
John H. O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court
2 RE-14-47
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF /S: ROBERT HARK, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT HARK 75 PEARL STREET SUITE 209 PORTLAND, ME 04101
JENNIFER THOMAS, ESQ. BEAGLE STEEVES & RIDGE LLC 24 NORTHEAST ROAD PO BOX 1815 STANDISH, ME 04084
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT IS: NICHOLAS THORNE JENS-PETER BERGEN, ESQ. LAW OFFICE OF JENS-PETER BERGEN 79 PORTLAND ROAD KENNEBUNK, ME 04043
KENNETH PIERCE, ESQ. MONAGHAN LEAHY LLP 95EXCHANGESTREET PO BOX 7046 PORTLAND, ME 04112-7046
ATTORNEY FOR PII/S: PAUL DRISCOLL, ESQ. DAVID GOLDMAN, ESQ. NORMAN HANSON & DETROY, LLC TWO CANAL PLAZA PO BOX4600 PORTLAND, ME 04112-4600
SEAN GALVIN, ESQ. FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS LEGAL DEPARTMENT 1 DAVIS FARM ROAD PORTLAND, ME 04103
PROSE PII: FRANKLIN AMERICA MORTGAGE (DEFAULTED) CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY (DEFAULTED)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Brackett v. Thorne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brackett-v-thorne-mesuperct-2015.