Law Court Decides Rule 53 Reference Case

I have actually heard there are a few folks following this blog, for which I am grateful. But the summer months are too precious here in Maine to spend time typing away on this and that, so this is my first new entry in several months.

Reference has been popular in divorce cases for going on ten years, and some of the bigger more complex divorces are now being decided by referees. Reference has its costs, i.e., the fees for the referee. However, there are savings also, such as being able to plan exactly when a trial will take place (rather than being bounced around on trailing dockets), and presentation to a referee is generally not as complicated as a bench trial in the District Court, as it is more informal than a trial. There are savings in time and costs there also.

In Gorman v. Gorman, 2010 ME 123, decided November 30, 2010, the parties obtained an order from the District Court judge that appointed the referee, but then said they waived any objection to the referee’s report and could proceed directly to the Law Court with any appeal. There is of course no such provision in M. R. Civ. P. 53. Objections to the referee’s report must be filed, and those objections are then considered by the District Court, after which the parties may appeal to the Law Court.

And, that is what the Law Court ruled. “The process allows the court to identify and address any issues that may need correction, clarification, or further legal analysis. By addressing the objections, the court may correct errors or misunderstandings quickly and without the expense of an appeal.” 2010 ME 123, at para. 5.

In this case since the parties had obtained a judge’s order “explicitly” approving this procedure, the Law Court did not summarily dismiss the appeal, but remanded the case with directions for the parties to file their objections as they should have below.

I guess the lesson here is that while reference allows the parties to obtain a judgment more expeditiously than they probably would by waiting for the District Court to get to the case (Why else would you want a referee?), the parties can only go so far in shaping the process they are going to follow. Conferring direct appeal jurisdiction on the Law Court is not one of the options. Frankly, it was a creative solution to the problem of waiting for the District Court to rule all the while knowing that whoever did not prevail in the objection determination would go the Law Court anyway.