Northeast Bank of Lewiston & Auburn v. Murphy

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Northeast Bank of Lewiston & Auburn v. Murphy

540 A.2d 1114, 1988 Me. LEXIS 110

DecidedApril 22, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 540 A.2d 1114 (Northeast Bank of Lewiston & Auburn v. Murphy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Northeast Bank of Lewiston & Auburn v. Murphy, 540 A.2d 1114, 1988 Me. LEXIS 110 (Me. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant Daniel J. Murphy appeals from a Superior Court, Androscoggin County, order denying his September 17, 1987, motion brought under M.R.CÍV.P. 60(a) for correction of a November 13, 1986, judgment assessing prejudgment interest on an award of attorney fees running against him. Since the assessment of prejudgment interest on the award of counsel fees resulted from a deliberate decision on the part of the Superior Court and clear[1115]*1115ly was not a clerical error, a Rule 60(a) motion was an inappropriate vehicle to obtain relief from the judgment, and the motion was properly denied. See Davis v. Bruk, 411 A.2d 660, 666-67 (Me.1980); 2 Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 60.2 (2d ed. 1970 & Supp.1981). Nor would it have been appropriate for the Superior Court to have considered the motion as one made under M.R.Civ.P. 60(b) since the court had previously denied a Rule 60(b) motion filed by Murphy and directed at the same November 13, 1986, judgment.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant Daniel J. Murphy appeals from a Superior Court, Androscoggin County, order denying his September 17, 1987, motion brought under M.R.CÍV.P. 60(a) for correction of a November 13, 1986, judgment assessing prejudgment interest on an award of attorney fees running against him. Since the assessment of prejudgment interest on the award of counsel fees resulted from a deliberate decision on the part of the Superior Court and clear[1115]*1115ly was not a clerical error, a Rule 60(a) motion was an inappropriate vehicle to obtain relief from the judgment, and the motion was properly denied. See Davis v. Bruk, 411 A.2d 660, 666-67 (Me.1980); 2 Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 60.2 (2d ed. 1970 & Supp.1981). Nor would it have been appropriate for the Superior Court to have considered the motion as one made under M.R.Civ.P. 60(b) since the court had previously denied a Rule 60(b) motion filed by Murphy and directed at the same November 13, 1986, judgment.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 A.2d 1114, 1988 Me. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northeast-bank-of-lewiston-auburn-v-murphy-me-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack