From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sullivan v. Warren-White

Superior Court of Maine, CUMDERLAND
Aug 13, 2021
No. RE-18-228 (Me. Super. Aug. 13, 2021)

Opinion

RE-18-228

08-13-2021

MARTINA SULLIVAN, Plaintiff v. NATHANIEL WARREN-WHITE, et al., Defendants

Plaintiff Pro Se Defendants-Michael Vaillancourt, Esq.


Plaintiff Pro Se Defendants-Michael Vaillancourt, Esq.

ORDER

THOMAS D. WARREN JUSTICE, SUPERIOR COURT

Before the court is plaintiff Martina Sullivans motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) for relief from the judgment in thin case docketed October 20, 2020. Thai motion was filed before the haw Court directed entry of a Stickler order against Ms. Sullivan.

Ms. Sullivan's motion is baaed on Rule 60(b)(3), allowing relief from a final judgment for "fraud (whether denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse parry." Specifically, Ms. Sullivan contends that the Warren-Whites' expert misrepresented and altered evidence ''relied on by both this Court in the Warren-White adverse possession case Docket No. RR-15-105 and their summery [sic] judgment case by changing the document or court-ordered description entitled 'old road description1," Ms, Sullivan's motion attaches a property description entitled ''Description of the Portion of the 'Old Road' Crossing Warren-White Property."

The affidavit offered by defendants' expert witness in this case, John Schwanda, attached the exact same property description without the "Old Road" title. Exhibit B to Schwanda Affidavit dated May 8, 2019, This seems to be what Ms. Sullivan is referring to- The document attached to the Schwanda affidavit, however, is a copy of the property description attached as Exhibit A to the Judgment entered September 8, 2017 in RE-15-105 by Justice Walker.

Other than the difference in the title of the property description, Ms. Sullivan has offered no further specification of any alleged fraud or misrepresentation. The attachment by Schwanda of the property description from Justice Walker's judgment in RE-15-105-as opposed to the copy of the same property description attached to Ms. Sullivan's motion - was entirely proper and does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute fraud or misrepresentation. This is just another example, among many, of what the Law Court describes in its memorandum decision as Ms. Sullivan's continued "unwillingness to accept the settled judicial resolution of the boundary line" between her property and that of the Warren-Whites, Ms. Sullivan's Rule 60(b) motion is denied as frivolous. The Warren-Whites have sought attorney's fees for the time spent in reviewing and responding to that motion. For reasons apparent from the Law Court's Spickler order and from this court's orders dated December 3, 2020 and July 9, 2019 the Warren-Whites are entitled to attorney's fees based on Ms, Sullivan's groundless and repetitive filings in her attempt to relitigate issues decided in prior litigation.

The Warren-Whites may file within 21 days an affidavit settling forth the hourly rate of their counsel, the time spent in opposing Ms. Sullivan's Rule 60(b) motion and in submitting their attorney's fees application, and the amount sought, Ms. Sullivan shall have 21 days from that filing to file any opposition to the amount sought.

The entry shall be:

1. Plaintiff Martina Sullivan's Rule 60(b) motion filed March 9, 2021 is denied.

2. Defendants Nathaniel and Elizabeth Warren-White are entitled to attorney's fees incurred in opposing Ms. Sullivan's Rule 60(b) motion and in submitting their attorney's fee application and shall submit an affidavit supporting the amount sought within 21 days.

3.The clerk shall incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).


Summaries of

Sullivan v. Warren-White

Superior Court of Maine, CUMDERLAND
Aug 13, 2021
No. RE-18-228 (Me. Super. Aug. 13, 2021)
Case details for

Sullivan v. Warren-White

Case Details

Full title:MARTINA SULLIVAN, Plaintiff v. NATHANIEL WARREN-WHITE, et al., Defendants

Court:Superior Court of Maine, CUMDERLAND

Date published: Aug 13, 2021

Citations

No. RE-18-228 (Me. Super. Aug. 13, 2021)