Opinion
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-12-210
10-03-2013
PATRICK MAIN, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINE MAIN, Defendant.
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF; GREGORY MCCULLOUGH MCCULLOUGH LAW OFFICES ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: BRADLEY C MORIN BOURQUE & CLEGG
ORDER
I. Background
Plaintiff Patrick Main and Defendant Christine Main are parents to Brian George Main, agel6, and Nicole Ann Main, age 14. After litigation in 2011-2012, the Springvale District Court ordered Defendant to pay child support in the amount of $147.50 and arrearages in the amount of $5,179.27. Plaintiff has brought this action for fraud alleging that Defendant overstated her weekly health insurance expense for the minor children in her child support affidavit dated September 28, 2007. Furthermore, Plaintiff has brought a claim for defamation alleging that Defendant has called him a "deadbeat dad" to others, and caused others to repeat the moniker. The District Court retains jurisdiction of child support determinations and review thereof. This Court reviews only Plaintiffs claims of fraud and defamation.
II. Standard of Review
When a defendant moves for summary judgment, "the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for each element of [the] cause of action that is properly challenged in the defendant's motion." Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 32, ¶ 38, 171 A.3d 640. The burden then shifts to the defendant to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 989 A. 2d 733, 738 (Me. 2010); Dyer v. Department of Transportation, 951 A.2d 821, 825 (Me. 2008). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews the parties' statements of material facts and the cited record evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
A genuine issue of material fact exists where the fact finder must make a determination between differing versions of the truth. Reliance National Indemnity v. Knowles Industrial Services Corp., 2005 ME 29, ¶7, 868 A.2d 220; citing Univ. of Me. Found. V. Fleet Bank of Me., 2003 ME 20, ¶20, 817 A.2d 871. Furthermore, "a fact is material if it could potentially affect the outcome of the case." Id.
III. Discussion
A. Res Judicata
Plaintiff claims that Defendant committed fraud when she submitted a child support affidavit to the District Court at the December 13, 2007 child support hearing stating that her weekly healthcare expense for the minor children was $90.50. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's cause of action should be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. "Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party and its privies are barred from relitigating claims or issues that have already been decided." Godsoe v. Godsoe, 2010 ME 42, ¶15, 995 A.2d 232; citing Portland Co. v. City of Portland, 2009 ME 98, ¶ 22, 979 A.2d 1279. In the litigation in 2011-2012, Plaintiff raised the claim of fraud concerning the health insurance costs Defendant claimed on behalf of the minor children. Defendant had the full and fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the issue before the District Court. Plaintiff agreed to the stipulation that he owed back child support of $5,179.26, an amount that included the health insurance costs. Plaintiff's stipulated back child support became part of a final judgment. This issue has already been litigated and determined. Plaintiff's claim of fraud is therefore barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The issue of child support is often a contentiously litigated issue in the District Court. Full and fair opportunity exists to obtain financial discovery and to litigate the basis for child support. Because of these opportunities, the court concludes that relitigation of these issues, even for claims of fraud, should be confined to circumstances where discovery would not have been able to root out inaccuracies in the claim's basis for child support. Since independent verification for health insurance issues could have occurred, there was a fair opportunity to investigate and litigate this issue.
B. Defamation
Plaintiff has brought a claim of defamation against Defendant for calling him a "deadbeat dad" and similar terms, and for causing her friends to repeat these phrases. "To prove defamation, a plaintiff must establish that a false statement published to a third party harmed the plaintiff's reputation so as to lower her [or him] in the community's estimation." Cookson v. Brewer Sch. Dep't, 2009 ME 57, 974 A.2d 276; citing Ballard v. Wagner, 2005 ME 86, ¶ 10, 877 A.2d 1083. Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant's statements harmed him. Because Plaintiff has not set out a prima facie case of defamation, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claim of Defamation.
IV. Conclusion The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
_________________
John O'Neil, Jr.
Justice, Superior Court
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF;
GREGORY MCCULLOUGH
MCCULLOUGH LAW OFFICES
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT:
BRADLEY C MORIN
BOURQUE & CLEGG