Perreault v. Parker, 490 A.2d 203 (1985)

Citation: Perreault v. Parker, 490 A.2d 203 (1985)
Parent Document: Perreault v. Parker, 490 A.2d 203 (1985)
Jurisdiction: Maine (state)
Effective Date: 1985-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2317231/perreault-v-parker/ ↗

Full Text

1,214 chars

Before addressing the retaliation issue, we pause to comment on the fact that the District Court adopted verbatim the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by the plaintiff. In In re Sabrina M., we noted at some length our disapproval of such a practice. 460 A.2d 1009, *2061013 (Me.1983); see also Clifford v. Klein, 463 A.2d 709, 711-13 (Me.1983). There is a significant danger that findings and conclusions adopted verbatim from a proposal of the prevailing litigant will be inadequate under M.D.C.Civ.R. 52(a). See In re Sabrina M., 460 A.2d at 1013; Clifford, 463 A.2d at 712. Nevertheless, “[i]t is not automatic error for the trial court to adopt verbatim the findings proposed by counsel....” In re Sabrina M., 460 A.2d at 1012. This was not a complex case where it would have been difficult for counsel “to divine the rationale supporting the decision of the court.” Clifford, 463 A.2d at 713. After close scrutiny, we determine that the District Court’s findings and conclusions, although certainly flawed,5 “are sufficiently explicit to give ... an understanding of the basis of its decision.” In re Sabrina M., 460 A.2d at 1013. Accordingly, they are sufficient under M.D.C.Civ.R. 52(a). Id.

Other Sections in This Document (54)

Full Text