Me. R. App. P. 2C
Restyling Notes - June 2017
Rule 2C replaces Rule 2(c). Rule 2C(a) is added to address cross-appeals. A cross-appeal is commenced by filing a notice of cross-appeal with the trial court. Rule 2C(a)(1) clarifies when an appellee must file a cross-appeal to preserve an issue. If a change in the judgment is sought, a cross-appeal must be filed. See Lyle v. Mangar, 2011 ME 129, ¶ 22, 36 A.3d 867; Costa v. Vogel, 2001 ME 131, ¶ 1 n.1, 777 A.2d 827.
Historically, the Law Court has not required an appellee to file a cross-appeal to preserve an argument that the judgment should be affirmed in every respect but simply contends that the same result could have been reached on alternative grounds. See Harris v. Woodlands Club, 2012 ME 117, ¶ 16 n.8, 55 A.3d 449; Scott Dugas Trucking & Excavating, Inc. v. Homeplace Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc., 651 A.2d 327, 329 (Me. 1994); State v. Me. Cent. R.R., 517 A.2d 55, 57 (Me. 1986); Givertz v. Me. Med. Ctr., 459 A.2d 548, 556 (Me. 1983); but see MaineToday Media v. State, 2013 ME 100, ¶ 28 n.17, 82 A.3d 104; Langevin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 ME 55, 6 n.4, 66 A.3d 585; Millien v. Colby College, 2005 ME 66, ¶ 9 n.3, 874 A.2d 397; Littlefield v. Littlefield, 292 A.2d 204, 208-09 (Me. 1972).
Rule 2C also has minor editing to further clarify that the Rule applies only to civil judgments.
Advisory Committee Note - July 2022
The change to Rule 2C(a)(1) provides additional clarification regarding the circumstances in which an appellee must file a cross-appeal to preserve a legal or factual argument. Under the rule, no cross-appeal is necessary if the appellee does not seek to change any aspect of the judgment. A cross-appeal is necessary only if a party seeks a change to the judgment. For example:
A defendant files a motion to dismiss a breach of contract claim, arguing that the statute of limitations bars the claim and that there was no breach of contract. The trial court grants the motion but reaches only the statute of limitations argument. The defendant need not file a cross-appeal to preserve the contract argument.
A plaintiff obtains summary judgment on a slip-and-fall claim, and the court awards $1,000 in damages. Plaintiff believes that the court should have awarded $2,000. The plaintiff must file a cross-appeal in order to preserve the argument that additional damages should have been awarded.
Rule 2C(a)(1), as amended, is consistent with Argereow v. Weisberg, 2018 ME 140, ¶ 11 n.4, 195 A.3d 1210; Harris v. Woodlands Club, 2012 ME 117, ¶ 16 n.8, 55 A.3d 449; and Scott Dugas Trucking & Excavating, Inc. v. Homeplace Building & Remodeling, Inc., 651 A.2d 327, 329 (Me. 1994). Under Rule 2C(a)(1), as amended, cross-appeals need not be filed under the circumstances presented in MaineToday Media, Inc. v. State, 2013 ME 100, ¶ 28 n.17, 82 A.3d 104; and Langevin v. Allstate Insurance, 2013 ME 55, ¶ 6 n.4, 66 A.3d 585.
In the event of an interlocutory appeal, a cross-appeal is not necessary to preserve claims of error that could otherwise be raised in an appeal from a final judgment.