Opinion

Williams v. Carroll F. Look Construction Co.

  • 904 A.2d 416
  • 2006 ME 60
  • 2006 Me. LEXIS 60
Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Filed
May 24, 2006
Status
Published
On the bench
Alexander, Clifford, Dana, Levy, Saufley, Silver
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 48.6%

imposing on Dyer’s client treble costs and $1,000 toward plaintiffs counsel fees on the ground that the appeal was instituted primarily for delay

How later courts described this case

  • imposing on Dyer’s client treble costs and $1,000 toward plaintiffs counsel fees on the ground that the appeal was instituted primarily for delay

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1] Carroll F. Look Construction Company, Inc., appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Hancock County, Mead, J.) denying its motion for relief from an earlier stipulated judgment (Atwood, J.). Contrary to the Company’s assertions, competent evidence in the record supports the court’s determination that Gary E. Williams did not derail the parties’ settlement agreement, see Estate of McCormick, 2001 ME 24, ¶35 , 765 A.2d 552, 564 ; White v. Fleet Bank of Me., 2005 ME 72, ¶ 11 , 875 A.2d 680, 683 , and the *417 court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Company’s motion to vacate pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (6), see Estate of Shapiro, 1999 ME 25, ¶ 14 , 723 A.2d 886, 889 . Further, contrary to the Company’s contentions, Hamill v. Bay Bridge Assocs., 1998 ME 181, ¶¶5-6 , 714 A.2d 829, 831 , is distinguishable from the instant case, and the court did not err in denying the Company’s motion to vacate pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) because the stipulated judgment was not void. See Land Use Regulation Comm’n v. Tuck, 490 A.2d 649, 652-53 (Me.1986).

[¶ 2] Because we conclude that the Company’s appeal was instituted primarily for delay, we award Williams treble costs and $1000 towards his counsel fees on appeal. M.R.App. P. 13(f).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed. Carroll F. Look Construction Company, Inc., to pay treble costs and $1000 towards Williams’s counsel fees on appeal pursuant to M.R.App. P. 13(f).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.