Opinion
Civil Action RE-2019-57
04-16-2021
GEOFFREY S. STIFF, and CAROLYN B. STIFF, Plaintiffs v. STEPHEN C. JONES and JODY C. JONES, Defendants
CERTIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT M.R.CIV.P .54(B)
William R. Stokes, Justice
In a Decision and Order dated March 12, 2021, the court granted the Defendants' (the Joneses) Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count 1 of the Plaintiffs' (the Stiffs) complaint and denied the Plaintiffs' similar motion for summary judgment on that count. In Count 1, the Stiffs alleged that the Joneses had violated certain restrictions that applied to their property because it was part of a "common scheme of development." In its Decision and Order, the court concluded that there was no common scheme of development applicable to the Joneses' lot.
Thereafter, the Stiffs filed a Motion to Amend pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 59(e) essentially asking the court to amend its Decision and Order to certify it as a final judgment in accordance with M.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The Joneses conditionally opposed the motion to amend on procedural grounds, namely, that a motion under Rule 54(b) should have been filed rather than a motion to amend under Rule 59(e). The court held an unrecorded telephone conference with counsel for the parties on April 16, 2021. The parties agree that the common scheme of development claim in Count 1 of the complaint is the 1 driving issue in this litigation and that the remaining claims in the complaint or the counterclaims are not closely interconnected to the common scheme of development issue and are likely to be resolved once that issue is finally determined. For example, the outstanding claims are a dispute over a common boundary line, a counterclaim for trespass and a counterclaim for nuisance, none of which have anything to do with the common scheme of development issue.
M.R.Civ.P. 54(b) provides:
. . . when more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim .. . the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims . . . only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.
The Law Court has stated that "[a] partial final judgment should be entered pursuant to this rule only in limited circumstances because there is a strong public policy against piecemeal review of litigation." Chase home Fin. LLC v. Higgins, 2008 ME 96, ¶ 10, 953 A.2d 1131. See generally C. Harvey, Maine Civil Practice § 54:3 at 180-185 (3d ed. 2011).
The court finds that several relevant factors, as identified by the Law Court, support the certification of the partial summary judgment in this case as a final judgment. As noted above, the common scheme of development issue in Count 1 is independent of the remaining claims and counterclaims. It is highly unlikely that review will be mooted by future developments in the trial court. An immediate appeal will facilitate overall resolution of this litigation and, therefore, the work of the trial court. While the Law Court has acknowledged the common scheme of development doctrine, it has not expressly adopted it. In that sense, then, it may be said that the legal question 2 is close. An immediate appeal is economically beneficial to the parties. Wells v. Fargo, 2007 ME 116, ¶ 13 ml, 930 A.2d at 1028.
Based on these considerations, the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the entry of final judgment as to Count 1 of the complaint in favor of the Defendants.
The entry is:
Final judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants on Count 1 of the Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant M.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
The clerk is directed to incorporate this order into the docket of this civil case by notation reference in accordance with M.R.Civ.P. 79(a). 3