Wolfson v. Menardo

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Wolfson v. Menardo

573 A.2d 390, 1990 Me. LEXIS 132

DecidedApril 27, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 573 A.2d 390 (Wolfson v. Menardo) 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

Wolfson v. Menardo, 573 A.2d 390, 1990 Me. LEXIS 132 (Me. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the defendants failed to appear at trial in the District Court (Bidde-ford, MacNichol, J.), we agree with the Superior Court (York County, Brodrick, J.) that they cannot later argue that they were not the proper parties to the lawsuit. Nor can the defendants raise for the first time on appeal their arguments that the amount billed them was unfair, that they should have been allotted a setoff for late delivery or that they believed that the trial would be postponed. The defendants should have presented all those arguments to the District Court. See Blanchette v. York Mut. Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 426, 428 (Me.1983). Since this appeal is clearly frivolous, we award treble costs to the appellee under M.R.Civ.P. 76(f). See Gurschick v. Clark, 511 A.2d 36 (Me.1986).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed. Treble costs shall be paid by appellants Anthony Menardo and Sal DeVito to appellee Donna 0. Wolf-son.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because the defendants failed to appear at trial in the District Court (Bidde-ford, MacNichol, J.), we agree with the Superior Court (York County, Brodrick, J.) that they cannot later argue that they were not the proper parties to the lawsuit. Nor can the defendants raise for the first time on appeal their arguments that the amount billed them was unfair, that they should have been allotted a setoff for late delivery or that they believed that the trial would be postponed. The defendants should have presented all those arguments to the District Court. See Blanchette v. York Mut. Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 426, 428 (Me.1983). Since this appeal is clearly frivolous, we award treble costs to the appellee under M.R.Civ.P. 76(f). See Gurschick v. Clark, 511 A.2d 36 (Me.1986).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed. Treble costs shall be paid by appellants Anthony Menardo and Sal DeVito to appellee Donna 0. Wolf-son.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 A.2d 390, 1990 Me. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfson-v-menardo-me-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack