Opinion
Civil Action RE-2020-004
12-08-2021
TRAVIS BARTLETT, Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant, v. LEAH MORRISON, Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. OAK HILL CLEANERS, INC., Third-Party Defendant.
Plaintiff/3rd Party Defendant's Counsel: Brendan Rielly, Esq Defendant's Counsel: Shea Watson, Esq. & Peter Cyr, Esq.
Plaintiff/3rd Party Defendant's Counsel: Brendan Rielly, Esq
Defendant's Counsel: Shea Watson, Esq. & Peter Cyr, Esq.
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
MaryGay Kennedy, Justice
The following motions are pending before the Court: (1) Plaintiff Travis Bartlett's ("Bartlett") Motion to File Documents Under Seal, (2) Defendant Leah Morrison's ("Morrison") Motion to File Document Under Seal, (3) Morrison's Rule 60(b) Motion to Amend Order on Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment, (4) Bartlett's Motion to Authorize Listing and Sale of the Premises, and (5) Morrison's Motion to Stay Pending Litigation. For the following reasons, Morrison's Motion to File Document Under Seal is granted, and the remaining motions are denied.
I. Background
This matter principally concerns real property located at 6 Appletree Drive, South Portland, Maine ("the Property"). On or about February 28, 2017, Bartlett and Morrison purchased the Property together by virtue of a deed recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds at Book 33861. There is a single-family home on the Property. In September 2019, Morrison demanded that Bartlett leave the Property. Morrison has excluded Bartlett from the Property ever since.
Bartlett brought the Complaint in this matter on January 10, 2020, alleging three counts: Count I, Action to Partition; Count II, Unjust Enrichment; and Count III, Conversion. Morrison answered the Complaint on February 19, 2020, and filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant Oak Hill Cleaners, Inc. ("Oak Hill"), Bartlett moved for summary judgment on Counts I and II of his Complaint. Simultaneously, Bartlett and Oak Hill moved for summary judgment on all counts of Morrison's counterclaim. Morrison, who was unrepresented at the time, failed to oppose the Motion. The Court, by Order dated July 2, 2021, granted summary judgment as to: Count I, Action to Partition, pending further proceedings to determine the appropriate distribution of sale proceeds; Counterclaim Count I as to Bartlett in the entirety and as to Oak Hill for all claims prior to February 19, 2014; and Counterclaim Count III as to any mortgages or tax liens encumbering the Property. The Court entered summary judgment against Bartlett as to Count II.
II. Discussion
Several motions are pending before the Court. The Court will address each in turn.
A. Bartlett's Motion to File Documents Under Seal
Bartlett seeks to file the following documents under seal: (1) the Exclusive Right to Sell Listing Agreement with Portside Real Estate Group, and (2) the Confidential Agreement on Adjustments to the listing price. Morrison does not object to Bartlett's Motion to File Documents Under Seal.
Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(b)(1) provides: "Upon the filing of a motion or other request to impound or seal documents or other materials, the clerk shall separate such materials from the publicly available file and keep them impounded or sealed pending the court's adjudication of the motion/' The public right to access court documents is a ''crucial principle" which must guide review of requests to seal documents. Carey v. Me. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 73, ¶ 12, 186 A.3d 848. Therefore, the general principle of public access is only overcome when subject to "countervailing interests [that] heavily outweigh the public interests in access/' Id. ¶ 11 (quoting Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)).
Bartlett has neither asserted nor demonstrated a sufficiently strong confidentiality interest to overcome the presumption of public access. Accordingly, the Court denies Bartlett's Motion to Seal.
B. Morrison's Motion to File Documents Under Seal
Morrison has moved to file under seal an Affidavit of Benjamin Bean, on the grounds that the Affidavit consists of Morrison's confidential medical information. Bartlett and Oak Hill do not object to Morrison's Motion to File Document Under Seal. Private medical information is often entitled to confidentiality, particularly where the specific information in question has not been put in issue in the litigation. Morrison's medical history is not in issue in the litigation, and her privacy interests in the information heavily outweigh the public's interest in access, Accordingly, the Court grants Morrison's Motion to File Document Under Seal.
C Morrison's Rule 60(b) Motion to Amend Order
Morrison moves pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to amend the Court's July 2, 2021 Order on Bartlett's Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds of mistake. M.R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides:
Bartlett does not oppose Morrison's Motion to Amend.
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.
Rule 60(b) "presupposes that a party has performed his duty to take legal steps to protect his own interests in the original litigation.” McKeen & Assocs. v. Dep't of Tramp,, 1997 ME 73, ¶ 4, 692 A.2d 924. Moreover, Rule 60(b) is not intended as an alternative method of appeal. Kolmosky v. Kolmosky, 631 A.2d 419, 421 (Me. 1993).
Morrison failed to oppose Bartlett's Motion for Summary Judgment and thereby waived any objection to the motion. See M.R. Civ. P. 7(c)(3); McKeen & Assocs., 1997 ME 73, ¶ 4, 692 A.2d 924, While Morrison was unrepresented at the time, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as represented parties. Dep't of Envtl Prot. v. Woodman, 1997 ME 164, ¶ 3 n.3, 697 A.2d 1295.
The mistake that Morrison argues justifies amendment of the Court's Order pursuant to Rule 60(b) is the Order's misidentification of Morrison and Bartlett as joint tenants, rather than tenants in common. Morrison argues that Bartletfs Statement of Material Fact to that effect was not properly supported because the deed which Bartletfs Motion refers to declares the parties to be tenants in common. Thus, Morrison argues that the Court's Order includes an error that should be amended.
However, Rule 60(b) is not designed to amend errors in orders. Rather, Rule 60(b) is meant to allow the Court to relieve a party from the operation of a judgment because of the party's excusable mistake or neglect, or any other reason justifying relief. Morrison does not assert excusable mistake on her own part. The grounds for Morrison's Motion and the relief sought are better suited to a motion made pursuant to Rule 59(e), Accordingly, the Court will treat Morrison's Motion as a motion made pursuant to Rule 59(e).
M.R. Civ, P. 59(e) provides: "A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed not later than 14 days after entry of the judgment. A motion for reconsideration of the judgment shall be treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment." The Court's Order is dated July 2, 2021. Morrison's Motion was filed September 22, 2021. By any counting of time, the fourteen-day deadline had long since passed by the time Morrison filed her Motion. Accordingly, the Court must deny the Motion as untimely.
D. Bartlett's Motion to Authorize Listing and Sale of the Premises
The Court has granted summary judgment for Bartlett on Count I, Action to Partition, pending further proceedings to determine the appropriate distribution of sale proceeds. Bartlett now requests that the Court authorize listing and sale of the Property in accordance with the terms of the Exclusive Right to Sell Listing Agreement with Portside Real Estate Group and the Confidential Agreement on Adjustments, attached as Exhibits A and B to Bartlett's Motion to File Documents Under Seal.
An order authorizing the listing and sale of the Property would be premature at this stage in the litigation. As stated in the Court's Order on Bartlett's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court has yet to determine-or even hear argument on-the equitable allocation of the proceeds of a sale. Even more importantly, there is no evidence on the record from which the Court may determine the reasonableness of the listing price proposed in the Listing Agreement. Bartlett's suggestion that the proceeds be escrowed pending a determination of their allocation may assuage the first concern. However, the Court is unwilling to authorize listing the Property at a certain price over Morrison's objection without hearing evidence and argument about the reasonableness of the price. Accordingly, the Court denies Bartlett's Motion to Authorize Listing and Sale of the Premises.
E. Morrison's Motion to Stay Pending Litigation
On October 5, 2021, Morrison filed a Motion to Stay Pending Litigation for Thirty Days. Because more than thirty days from the date of Morrison's filing have passed as of the date of this Order, the Court denies the Motion as moot.
III. Conclusion
The entry is:
1. Bartlett's Motion to File Documents Under Seal is DENIED.
2. Morrison's Motion to File Document Under Seal is GRANTED.
3. Morrison's Rule 60(b) Motion to Amend Order on Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
4. Bartlett's Motion to Authorize Listing and Sale of the Premises is DENIED.
5. Morrison's Motion to Stay Pending Litigation is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).