NDC Communications, LLC v. Kenneth Carle III , 2016 ME 156 ( 2016 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2016 ME 156 Docket: BCD-15-578
Argued: September 14, 2016
Decided: October 18, 2016
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.
NDC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
v.
KENNETH CARLE III
SAUFLEY, C.J.
[¶1] Following a bench trial on NDC Communications, LLC’s complaint
and Kenneth Carle III’s counterclaim, which arose from a construction and
land development dispute, the court (Murphy, J.) entered a judgment against
Carle, in the amount of $336,681.24, in the Business and Consumer Docket.
Carle appeals, arguing that his due process rights were violated during the
post-trial process and that there was insufficient evidence to support the
judgment. Specifically, Carle argues that the court failed to provide him a
credit due of approximately $25,000, rendering the judgment against him
inaccurate by that amount. We affirm the judgment.1
1 We conclude without further discussion that the court did not err in denying Carle’s motion for
relief from an order that was not a final judgment. See M.R. Civ. P. 60(b) (“On motion and upon such
terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment.”) (emphasis added).
2
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] The parties in this matter engaged in an unusually complex set of
agreements in the context of the development of a piece of land in
Kenduskeag. All of the work, purchases of equipment, and monetary
exchanges were undertaken without a written contract. When the parties’
working relationship broke down, NDC filed a complaint asserting that it was
owed substantial funds from Carle, and Carle counterclaimed against NDC
seeking contract remedies and other relief.
[¶3] At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court made extensive
written findings in a thirteen-page order. The court concluded that Carle was
liable to NDC, but it determined that the state of the relatively chaotic record
was such that it could not, without further argument from the parties,
determine the exact amount still owed by Carle. Indeed, the parties
themselves could not tell the court with any clarity what was owed to whom.
Accordingly, the court sought post-trial arguments. In so doing, the court
asked NDC to submit an “affidavit” summarizing specific evidence and setting
forth a calculation of damages. The court explicitly ordered that the affidavit
was to include only evidence that had been admitted at trial and that Carle
could submit opposing argument. After receiving the parties’ post-trial filings,
3
the court entered judgment enforcing a mechanic’s lien against Carle in the
amount of $336,681.24, and requiring Carle to convey title to an excavator to
NDC.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶4] Carle first argues that his due process rights were violated by the
post-trial procedures employed by the court, asserting that the court provided
NDC an opportunity to present evidence that Carle could not challenge. We
are not persuaded. Although the court sought NDC’s post-trial argument
through the filing of an “affidavit,” it explicitly ordered that the affidavit could
include only evidence that had been presented during the trial. The purpose
and function of the affidavit was to present argument summarizing the
evidence of damages, not to present new evidence.
[¶5] To the extent that Carle is arguing that the affidavit did, contrary to
the court’s order, contain facts not presented at trial, we are similarly
unpersuaded. All of the facts referenced in the affidavit were presented at
trial—most are found in the multitude of exhibits admitted at trial, and some
are found in the testimony of NDC’s witnesses. Thus, the court did not err in
considering NDC’s affidavit, over Carle’s opposition, because the affidavit
4
contained only factual statements that are supported by the record
evidence—evidence that Carle had a full opportunity to challenge at trial.
[¶6] Ultimately, it appears that Carle is arguing that he should have
been allowed to cross-examine NDC’s representative regarding the argument
and the mathematical calculations included in NDC’s post-trial filings. Carle,
however, had the opportunity to respond to the NDC affidavit and presented
his own arguments to the court for consideration. He was simply not
deprived of an opportunity to be heard.
[¶7] Carle also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that
the judgment against him failed to credit approximately $25,000 in payments
that he argues should have been included in the court’s calculations. Contrary
to Carle’s contentions, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the
court’s judgment, including its determination of damages. See In re
Guardianship of Hailey M., 2016 ME 80, ¶ 15, 140 A.3d 478; see also Pelletier v.
Pelletier, 2012 ME 15, ¶ 20, 36 A.3d 903 (“In the absence of a motion for
additional findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to M.R.
Civ. P. 52(b), we will infer that the trial court made any factual inferences
needed to support its ultimate conclusion.”). The court’s extensive factual
findings are supported in the record, as are the court’s ultimate calculations.
5
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
On the briefs:
Richard Silver, Esq., Lanham, Blackwell & Baber, P.A.,
Bangor, for appellant Kenneth Carle III
F. David Walker, Esq., and Allison A. Economy, Esq., Rudman
Winchell, Bangor, for appellee NDC Communications, LLC
At oral argument:
Richard Silver, Esq., for appellant Kenneth Carle III
Allison A. Economy, Esq., for appellee NDC Communications,
LLC
Business and Consumer Docket docket number RE-2014-03
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY