Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 1502-D (2026)

Taxing of costs; hearing

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(REALLOCATED FROM TITLE 14, SECTION 1503-D)

The clerk shall set costs under section 1502-B and interest under section 1602-B to the extent they appear from the record. The prevailing party or the prevailing party's attorney may submit a bill of costs for all other costs or interest to the court not later than 10 days after entry of judgment and serve copies on all parties who have appeared and may be required to pay these costs. Any party required to pay all or any part of these costs, except a party who is defaulted and has not appeared, may, within 10 days after the date of service, challenge any items of cost or interest and request review by the court. The prevailing party shall, within 10 days after a challenge, submit to the court any vouchers or other records verifying any challenged items of cost or interest. Either side may request oral argument and submit affidavits and briefs. An evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of costs or interest will be held only when the judge determines that there exists a substantial need for the hearing and the amount of challenged costs or interest are substantial. If the presiding judge determines that the imposition of costs will cause a significant financial hardship to any party, the judge may waive all or part of the costs with respect to that party. [PL 2003, c. 460, §3 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1985, c. 737, §A36 (RAL). PL 1989, c. 360 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 460, §3 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: Arsenault v. Crossman, 1997 ME 92 (Me. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arsenault v. Crossman, 1997 ME 92 (Me. 1997). · cites it 12× “The court concluded that it had authority pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D (Supp.1996) [2] to award less than Crossman had submitted as his bill of costs.”

Pierce v. Cent. Maine Power Co., 622 A.2d 80 (Me. 1993). · cites it 3× “After trial, CMP moved for a partial or full waiver of prejudgment interest, and plaintiffs requested an evidentiary hearing on the issue as provided by 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D (Supp.1992). 5 Refusing plaintiffs’ request for a hearing, the court ordered that two years of…”

Seacoast Hangar Condo. II Ass'n v. Martel, 775 A.2d 1166 (Me. 2001). “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D (Supp.2000). The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the Association’s bill of costs.”

Poland v. Webb, 1998 ME 104 (Me. 1998). “§ 1502-D permits the court to consider the financial hardship suffered by a party through the imposition of costs, it does not require the court to consider the relative economic wherewithal of the parties when making that decision. Nothing in the rules or statutes noted above…”

Greenlaw v. Rodney Stinson Post No. 102, 567 A.2d 75 (Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “Greenlaw contends that because the Post did not submit its bill of costs to the court within the 10-day period prescribed by 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D (Supp.1988), 1 the court erred in granting any costs to the Post.”

Sawyer v. Walker, 572 A.2d 498 (Me. 1990). “The proper mechanism to address the Superior Court’s concerns with plaintiffs request is provided by 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D (Pamph.1989), which authorizes an eviden-tiary hearing on the reasonableness of any challenged costs or interest requested by the prevailing party pursuant…”

Voignier v. Bittner, 609 A.2d 709 (Me. 1992). “Bittner did not seek to have the trial court address the issue of interest in any way, nor did he file any post-trial motions.”

Boudreau v. Mfrs. & Merchants Mut. Ins., 588 A.2d 286 (Me. 1991). “The Superior Court initially granted the Bou-dreaus’ bill of costs submitted pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D (Supp.1990) and ordered the defendant to pay $100 for filing fees, $223.”

Cole v. A.J. Cole & Sons, Inc., 567 A.2d 1342 (Me. 1989). “14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D (Supp.1988) provides: § 1502-D.”

Sun Lumber v. Loiselle, 593 A.2d 213 (Me. 1991). “1990); 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D (Supp.1990). There is no statutory authority nor is there anything in the record to suggest that Loiselle either undertook a contractual obligation to pay attorney fees or engaged in such tortious conduct as would permit an exception to the “American…”

Mack v. Acadia Ins. Co., 709 A.2d 1187 (Me. 1998). “14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D (Supp.1997). The language of the statute plainly makes the determination of whether to hold a hearing on a contested bill of costs discretionary on the part of the trial court.”

Brown v. Nortrax, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2022). · cites it 3× “Brown's claim and the Nortrax Defendants' crossclaim. On March 29, 2022, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of MTA on the issue of its immunity from suit.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.