Parks v. Francoeur

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 26, 2015
DocketCUMcv-12-024
StatusUnpublished

This text of Parks v. Francoeur (Parks v. Francoeur) 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
Parks v. Francoeur, (Me. Super. Ct. 2015).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION Docket No.tV'-12-024

DANIEL PARKS,

Plaintiff ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S RULE 60(B) MOTION v.

ANDREW FRANCOEUR, \err.;_ ') c zn\ LL.-1 ,._ (J ~ U ~v- Defendant ;::~r:(;E~ ·vr:o Before the court is plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion. Plaintiff alleges newly

acquired evidence suggests fraudulent testimony was presented by defendant

and witness Paul Bois. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

The proposed testimony of Mr. Bois could have been discovered before

trial by inquiring whom plaintiff intended to call as witnesses. See In re Estate of

Fournier, 2009 ME 17, CJI 12, 996 A.2d 885. If the first notice that Mr. Bois would

testify came with the defendant's witness list, counsel could have approached the

court for an opportunity to depose Mr. Bois after the discovery deadline of

October 9, 2012. Defendant's witness list was filed December 10, 2012. Trial was

held August 27, 2013.

Most importantly, the proposed evidence would not change the result

upon a new trial. See id. This was a jury-waived trial. The court devoted one

sentence to Mr. Bois's testimony in the seven-page judgment. The court devoted

three pages in the Findings section of the judgment to plaintiff's testimony. The

court devoted two pages in the Conclusions section of the judgment to the

problems with plaintiff's ability to prove his case. The court specifically stated,

"plaintiff's testimony about the events of June 5, 2010 and thereafter was not credible, was exaggerated, and was, at times, theatrical." (1 I 9 I 14 Judgment at

7.) The court noted that the testimony of plaintiffs witness, Mr. Fickett was

given little weight. (Id.)

The plaintiff had the burden of proof. If defendant had moved for

judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of plaintiff's case, the motion

would have been granted. M.R. Civ. P. SO(d).

The entry is

Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) Motion is DENIED.

Dated: February 26, 2015 cy Mills Justice, Superior Co

2 CLERK OF COURTS Cumberland County 205 Newbury Street, Ground Floor Portland, ME 04101

-:!}~nJc..n1' f'liio

---------··--··"·--·"-·----·---··-------·---- CLERK OF COURTS Cumberland County 205 Newbury Street, Ground Floor Portland, ME 04101

JOSEPH CAHOON ESQ ~\ ' •~ ' L\..l_L RICHARDSON WHITMAN LARGE & BADGER l (A\(\'\ 1 \ Tl \-l \ e;>\~~ PO BOX 9545 f PORTLAND ME 04112-9545

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

Related

Hansen v. City of Laurel
996 A.2d 882 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2010)
Estate of Fournier
2009 ME 17 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Parks v. Francoeur, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-francoeur-mesuperct-2015.