Brackett v. Thorne

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedJune 29, 2015
DocketYORre-14-47
StatusUnpublished

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.

Bluebook
Brackett v. Thorne, (Me. Super. Ct. 2015).

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

White v. Fleet Bank of Maine
2005 ME 72 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brackett v. Thorne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brackett-v-thorne-mesuperct-2015.