Submitted on Briefs July 1, 2015.
On the briefs: Sharon E. Blanchard, Pro se, appellant.
Gene R. Libby, Esq., Libby O'Brien Kingsley & Champion, LLC, Kennebunk, for appellee Libby O'Brien Kingsley & Champion, LLC.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, and HJELM, JJ.
[¶1] Sharon E. Blanchard appeals from an order of the District Court (Portland, Eggert, J. ) approving attachment, including attachment on trustee process, against her real and personal property based on a complaint for breach of contract filed by Libby O'Brien Kingsley & Champion, LLC (LOKC). Blanchard appears to challenge the court's findings in support of attachment and trustee process. Because the court's findings are
supported by competent evidence in the motion record, we affirm.
[¶2] LOKC filed its initial complaint for breach of contract against Blanchard in October 2014, seeking $39,945.22 in unpaid attorney fees, costs, and late fees. LOKC simultaneously filed a motion for approval of attachment and trustee process against Blanchard's property pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 4A and 4B, accompanied by a supporting affidavit of the attorney with whom Blanchard had allegedly contracted for legal services. See M.R. Civ. P. 4A(c), 4B(c).
[¶3] The supporting affidavit complied fully with M.R. Civ. P. 4A and 4B. It set forth specific facts regarding the parties' contract, the extent of services provided, and the amount of unpaid fees. The affiant averred, based on his own knowledge, information, or belief, that (1) it was more likely than not that LOKC would recover judgment in an amount equal to or greater than the requested sum of attachment; (2) no liability insurance would cover Blanchard's breach of contract; (3) no other property attached by another writ of attachment was available to satisfy the judgment; (4) LOKC notified Blanchard of her right to arbitration pursuant to the Maine Bar Rules; and (5) so far as the affidavit was based upon information and belief, the affiant believed this information to be true. See M.R. Civ. P. 4A(c) (listing the requisite findings to support an order of attachment); M.R. Civ. P. 4A(i) (establishing requirements for the contents of Rule 4A affidavits); M.R. Civ. P. 4B(c) (requiring the same of Rule 4B affidavits).
[¶4] Blanchard filed a very brief letter objecting to LOKC's motion and the allegations contained therein. She did not include with her letter a memorandum, supporting affidavit, or any other supporting documentation as required by M.R. Civ. P. 7(c)(1). The court could properly determine that Blanchard had waived her objection to the motion, and accordingly, it considered the merits of the attachment motion without a hearing. See M.R. Civ. P. 4A(c), 4B(c); S. Me. Props. Co. v. Johnson, 1999 ME 37,
¶ 8, 724 A.2d 1255 (stating that a formal hearing with oral argument is not required for a court to rule on an attachment motion); see also Clearwater Artesian Well Co. v. LaGrandeur, 2007 ME 11,
¶ 8, 912 A.2d 1252 (reiterating our approach that " self-represented litigants are afforded no special consideration in procedural matters" ); cf. First Citizens Bank v. M.R. Doody, Inc., 669 A.2d 743, 744 & n.2 (Me. 1995). In November 2014, the court ordered attachment and trustee process against Blanchard's real and personal property.
[¶5] We review orders for attachment and trustee process for an abuse of discretion or clear error. Lindner v. Barry, 2003 ME 91,
¶ 3, 828 A.2d 788.
To order either attachment or trustee process, the court must find
that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will recover judgment, including interest and costs, in an amount equal to or greater than the aggregate sum of the attachment and any liability insurance, bond, or other security, and any property or credits attached by other writ of attachment or by ...