Opinion
Civil Action CV-19-039
07-20-2020
ROBERT L. CONNARY, SUSAN E. NAPOLITANO, PATRICIA A. NARDUCCI, JAMES C. CLARK, MARGARET A. GILLETT, and ERIC R. CLARK, Plaintiffs v. RICHARD A. SHEA, individually, and as Trustee of Che SHEA FAMILY LIVING TRUST, and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF PATRICIA C. SHEA, DENNIS G. SHEA, WILLIAM P. SHEA, and the SHEA FAMILY LIVING TRUST, Defendants
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO STRIKE
Harold Stewart, II Justice
Before the court are Plaintiffs Robert Connary, Susan Napolitano, Patricia Narducci, James Clark, Margaret Gillet, and Eric Clark ("Plaintiffs")'s motion for reconsideration of the court's April 9, 2020 order on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, and motion to strike that same order. For the following reasons Plaintiffs' motions are denied.
Background
The court granted Defendants Richard Shea, Dennis Shea, William Shea, and the Shea Family Living Trust ("Defendants")'s cross motion for partial summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on April 9, 2020. In this order the court ruled that the Siwooganock Bank Stock bestowed on the Plaintiffs contained in the Shea Family Living Trust (the "Trust") had adeemed. (Order April 9, 2020.)
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on April 22, 2020 and a motion to strike on May 20, 2020.
Discussion
A motion for reconsideration "shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented." M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(5). "Rule 7(b)(5) is intended to deter disappointed litigants from seeking to reargue points that were or could have been presented to the court on the underlying motion." Shaw v. Shaw, 2003 ME 153, ¶ 8, 839 A.2d 714 (quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs move for the court to reconsider its decision. In their motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs argue that the court's April 9 Order is incorrect because: 1) the court incorrectly held that the gift of Siwooganock Bank Stock was a single gift, not six individual gifts; (2) the court did not properly consider the settlor's intent; and (3) the court disregarded case law cited by Plaintiffs that support the Siwooganock Bank Stock being categorized as a general legacy. (Pls.' Mot. for Reconsider. 1-2.)
Plaintiffs first argument was not presented to the court on its motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs have identified no reason as to why this argument could not previously have been presented; it is deemed waived. See Warren Constr, Grp., LLC v. Reis, 2016 ME 11, ¶ 9, 130 A.3d 969 (citing Dillon v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 630 F, 3d 75, 80 (1st Cir. 2011)), Plaintiff second and third arguments are the same arguments that were considered by the court in its April 9, 2020 Order, which Plaintiffs raised in their pleadings for summary judgment and in opposition to Defendants' cross motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' motion does not raise "an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented." M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(5). Plaintiffs' motion is reargument and is dismissed.
Plaintiffs also move to strike the court's April 9, 2020 Order. The Court is not aware of any procedural rule that allows for a motion to Strike an order. Plaintiffs' motion in essence is a Rule 59(e) motion, to alter or amend a judgment. M.R. Civ. P. 59(e), Plaintiffs have presented no reason as to why this matter could not be included in its previous motion for reconsideration, Id. ("A motion for reconsideration of the judgment shall be treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment.")' Plaintiffs have waived this argument
Even had this argument been included in Plaintiffs' original motion for reconsideration, the court would still deny this motion. Plaintiffs argue that the court exceeded its authority in ruling on Plaintiffs reformation claim, which, they argue, was not presented in their motion for summary judgment or Defendants' cross motion for summary judgment. The statutory standard for reformation cited by Plaintiffs requires a finding that "both the settlor's intent and the terms of the trust were affected by s mistake of fact or law," 18-B.M.R.S. § 415. The court made a finding that, "The Settlor's intent is clear and plain, the Sigwooganock Bank Stock was a specific legacy." (Order, April 9, 2020.) Summary judgment on Plaintiffs' reformation claim was supported by the findings of the court's April 9, 2020 Order.
The clerk, is directed to incorporate this order into the docket by reference. M. R. Civ. P. 79(a).
The entry is
Plaintiffs Robert Connary, Susan Napolitano, Patricia Narducci, James Clark, Margaret Gillet, and Eric Clark's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Plaintiffs Robert Connary, Susan Napolitano, Patricia Narducci, James Clark, Margaret Giilet, and Eric Clark's Motion to Strike is DENIED.