The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
AROOSTOOK, ss DOCKET NO. RE-12-016
LAWRENCE GRANT and )
NANCY FAULKNER-GRANT )
)
Plaintiffs )
)
vs )
) ORDER ON MOTION
)
ELIZABETH M. BUTLER and )
DALE A. BUTLER )
)
Defendants )
Pending before the court is Defendant's "Motion to Enforce Court Order" and the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss the Defendant's Motion. Because the court agrees with the
Plaintiffs that the Defendant's motion suffers from a number of technical and substantive
deficiencies, the court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the Defendant's motion. The
Dismissal however shall be without prejudice.
The relief that the Defendants appear to seek is governed by M.R.Civ. P. 66. The
Defendants have not complied with the requirements of this rnle or with other rules governing
the filing of motions. At this stage of the proceedings, it appears that the Defendants are
representing themselves. As lay people, it is not surprising that they may not be familiar with
court rules. However, the Plaintiffs are correct that we have only one set of rules and all litigants,
whether they have legal counsel or are representing themselves, are bound by the same set of
rules. The court may not engage in any bending of the rules or granting of special consideration
because a litigant appears without legal representation. Truman v. Browne, 2001 ME ,r 11, 788
A.2d.
If the Defendants seek relief from the court, they must do so within the bounds of the
governing rules and procedures. It should also be noted that neither the court nor court staff are
permitted to provide legal assistance to litigants.
The entry shall be: The Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss is granted; the dismissal shall be
without prejudice.
April 18, 2018
./ lrl
c_.
~ ? / ...··· .··)
~
ti::.c.._, -
. ~.
c --~
t"'
_
E. Allen Hunter
Justice, Superior Court (Active Retired)