Pratt v. Davis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MAINE AROOSTOOK, SS HOULTON SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. HOUSC-CV-15-023 ESTATE OF HEIDI LYN PRATI ) ) Plaintiff V. MATTHEW DAVIS, Defendant ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW M.R.crv.P. 52 ) ) ) ) ) On July 11, 2017, the court conducted a hearing on damages in connection with the above referenced. The court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of Fact 1. On December 22, 2016, Matthew Davis (10/29/1980} was found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" by a jury of 10 criminal counts in docket number HOUSC-CR-13-137. These charges included the crimes of Murder of Heidi Lyn Pratt and the crime of Arson of Heidi Lyn Pratt's residence located at 331 Oakfield-Smyrna Road, Oakfield, ME. 2. In finding Matthew Davis guilty, the jury found that he had "intentionally or knowingly" caused the death of Heidi Lyn Pratt.! 3. On February 10, 2017, Matthew Davis was sentenced to life in prison in HOUSC-CR-13-137. 4. The crime fur which Matthew Davis was convicted by jury occurred on or about September 23, 2013, in Oakfield, MR. 5. On September 23, 2013, Heidi I .yn Pratt was at her home located at 331 Oakfic)d-Smyrna Road in Oakfield, MF.. 1 17 M.R.S.A. §201. 6. f n the early morning hours, Matthew Oavis entered Heidi Pratt's residence with a firearm. 7. While in the rnsic.fonce at 331 Oakfie!J-Smyrna Hoad, Matthew Davis shot and killed l (cidi Pratt and Michael Kitchen. At some point he also set the house on fire. 8. l Icidi rratt's body was found in the entry hallway of her home. At ddendant's trial for murder in HOUSC-CR-13..137, evidence was presented that prior to being shot, f feidi Pratt had left her bedroom where she was sleeping and went to the entry hallway to investigate the noise created by Matthew Davis'sarrivaJ at the home. 9. Tht! coroner's report, iluthored by Dr. Mark Flomenbaum, the Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Maine, determined that Heidi Pratt's cause of death to be "Exsanguinalion due to a gunshot wound." 10. Dr. flomenbaum further testified to the details of Heidi Prntt's death at Matthew Davis's criminnl h·ial on Wednesday, December 7, 2013. Dr. Flomenbaum testified that Heidi Pratt suffered exsanguination when a high caliber bullet pierced her carotid artery. 11. Exsanguinalion is defined by Mc~rriam Webster as "the action or process of draining or losing blood."2 12. Dr. Flomenhaum testified that a larr,e pool of blood was found underneath Heidi Pratt's body. The larr,c pool of blood indicates that l leidi Pratt was alive, and her heart rnnlinucd lo pump blood throughout her hudy -- including tu and ultimatdy out the injured portion of her carotid artery. 13. It is unclear to the court whether the period of timEi from the infliction of the gunshot wound to the lime when 1 lcidi Pratt ultimately succumbed to her injuries represents a period of "consciou:-. suffering." 14. On September 16, 2015, the nstate of I leidi I .yn Pratt filed a lwo-count complaint with the I foulton Superior Court. 1 https ://www. me rria m-webstcr. com/dictionaryI exsa n~u in at ion 15. This complaint alleged in Count 1 the complaint of" Wrongful Death M.R.S.A. 18-A §2-804(b). Count 2 of the complaint aHeged "Death following Conscious Suffering" M.R.S.A 18-A §2-804(c). 16. In each of count 1 and count 2, the Plaintiff sought damages in the amount of $500,000 for the loss of Comfort, Society, and Companionship, $250,000 for punitive damages, and its costs for professional services, costs for funeral expenses, and whatever other relief the court deemed just and necessary. 17. Service of the complaint and summons was made on the defendant on September 28, 2015. This summons set forth the standard admonition in bold letters that the Defendant woulJ need to file a written answer within 20 days of service or risk having a default judgment entered against him. 18. On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff moved for the entry of a default judgment as the defandant had failed to enter a l'esponse to the complaint and summons within the required timcframe. 19. On October 22, 2015, the Defendant filed a note with the court requesting that he be allowed to file a late answer to the complaint and indicating that he denied everything in the complaint. 20. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a motion opposing defendant's motion to file late answer. 21. On January 11, 2016, the court denied the Defendant's motion to file a late answer. 22. On January 21, 2016, the court entered the Defendant's default in HOUSC-CV I t 15-023. ' 23. On January 26, 2016, Defendant filed a motion requesting the court to set aside the default judgment. This filing I W<'l.S supplemented by a letter from a non- 4'ttor.ney and non-party to the matter, "Billie Jo Davis," asking the default to be set aside. 24. On January 2'1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for hearing on damages (Plaintiff's counsel lwd not yet received Defendant's motion to set asiJe default). 25. On fobruary 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion opposing Defendant's motion to set aside default. 26. By agreement of both tht~ Plaintiff and the Defendant, the matter of whether or not lo set aside the default judgment was postponed until after the conclusion of defendant's criminal trial for the murder of I leidi f .yn Pratt and Michael Kitchen. 27. A hearing on Defendant's motion to set aside default was scheduled for May 2017. 28. Prior to this hearing, Dcfondant sent a letter dated April 3, 2017 that he was withdrawing his motion to set aside default judgment. In thifi letter the Defendant stated "l would also likt• to ask the court to proceed however Mr. Suitter intends to [sic] ... " 29. On May 4, 2017, the Aroostook County Superior County clerk sent out a letter to the Defendant asking if he intended to participate via video conforence in any hearing on damages. The Defendant did not respond to this letter. :10. On July 11, 2017, a hearing on damages was held al the Aroostook County Superior court; the Plaintfff and Plaintiff's counsel appeared via video con.forencc. J\t this hearing the court indicated it would take judicial notice of the en.tire trial filt:! of HOUSC-CR-13-137 as well as written .c;ubmissions by Paul Suittcr regarding the loss of society, mm.fort, and companionship. 31. The affidavits of Paul Edwin Suitter detail his relationship with I Jcidi Lyn Prntt. The~e affidavits Me hereby incorporated by reference and their statements establish a foundation for regarding Pal1l F.dwin Suitter's loss of comfort and consortium due to the actions of Matthew Davis. 32. At the hearing on damages, the Plaintiff repeated its request to the court for a findinP, for damages in the amount of $500,000 on both counts l and 2 for the loss of Comfort, Society, and Companionship, and $250,000 on both counts ·t and 2 for punitive damages :n. The Plaintiff also demanded its costs for (uneral costs. These funerul costs, alonp; with the costs of a grave memorial, arc detailed in the '1ffidavit of Paul Edwin Suitter and tolc:lled $10,0H .43. . i 34. The Plaintiff also demanded its costs for professional services. These included the cost of probating the Estate of Heidi Lyn Pratt and c11re detailed in the affidavit of Paul Edwin Suitter and totaled $15,032.09. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 35. Th~ awal'd of civil damages "effectively augments the criminal law in deterring ! intolerable conduct. The doctrine of punitive damages encourages the use of civil actions by private parties in response to such conduct especially when Lhe prospective compensatory recovery is low or the expected cost of litigation is high." Iuttle y. R~ymond, 494 A.2d 1353, 1358-59 (Me. 1985). I I 1 36. A Plaintiff in Maine "may recover exemplary damages upon tortious conduct only if he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant acted with malice." !d. at 1363. 37. There is no formula or specific computation to determine what an appropriate dollar figure is when awarding civil damages. Rather, Maine courts have held that "Punitive damages...can be individualized to provide a deterrent that will be adequate for each case. 11 Id. at 1359 (quoting Mallor c11nd Roberts, Punitive pamages: Toward a J'ril:)QJ~l~Q. Appro<!.ch, 31 Hastings L.J. 639 {1980). 38. When considering the value ofan award of exemplary damages" the fact finder must weigh 1all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors' presented by the parties, including the egregiousness of the defendant's conduct, the ability of the defendant to pay such an award, and any criminal punishment imposed .. . . Afler such consideration, an exemplary award is 'within th~ sound discretion of the fact finder.'" .r~t (quoting JJamwl~ Ins. Co. r v. 1 -l~ward, 464 A.2d 156, 158 (Me. 1983). 39. A final factor in a court's determination of an exemplary award is that civil penalties provid~ a mech,mism for "enforcement of society's rules against serious misconduct." Id. at 1:158. 4.0. M.R.CIV.P. 52(a}. In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an f: Ir 1! ~ I I ' advisory jury, th<! Superior Court justice or, if an electronic recording was made int.he Distrkt Court, the District Court ju<lr,e, shall upon the request of a party made os n motion within 7 days after the statement of the dedsion in open court, or the entry of the decision or judgment on the docket, whichever comes first, or may upon its own motion, find the fa<.:ts specifically and state sep,m1tdy its condu~ions of low. Such findings and conclusions may be made in summary form and moy be made orally, provid<~d that, in every action for termination of parental rights, the court shall make specific findings of fact and state its conclusions of law thereon as required by 22 M.R.S.A. §4055. 1f an opinion or memorandum of decisions is filed, it will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law oppcar therein. Any motion made pursuant to I{ule 52(«) must include the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law requested. The court is not required to make findin8s of fact and. conclusions of l«w on decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56, or in small claims actions. 41. (b) Amended or Additional Findings. The rnurt may, upon motion of a party fileu not later Lhan 14 days after entry of jud ~mcnt, amend it findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment if appropriate. The motion may be made with a motion for o new trial or a motion to alter or amend tht:" judbrmEmt pursuant to Rule 59. l\.ny motion made pursuant to Rule 52(b) must include the proposed findin~s of fact an<l conclusions of law requested. ,12. (c) Effect. Findings of fact shall not be set .isidc unless clearly erroneous, and due re~ard shall be given to the opportunity of th(~ trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. The findings of a referee, to the extent that th~ court adopts them, shall be considered as th0 findinr,s of the court. 41. Matth~w D~vis was responsible for the murd(il' of I Ieidi Lyn Pratt. 44. While it is possible thc1l prior to suffering death, Heidi Pratt experienced a period of conscious suffering, in the court's view there is simply insufficient evidence of this. rt is possible that t.here was conscious suffering but it is aJso po.ssibl.e that although she was aliv<:.~ for c1 brief time before exsanguinating, she was rendered unconscious by her wound. The court dt!cli1ws to spe\·ulate regarding this aspect of Ms. Pratt's tragic circumstances. 45. Matthew Davis was responsible for the arson of Heidi I.yo Pratt's residence at 3:ll Oakfield Smyrna Roa<l. 46. Paul Suitter is the only son and heir of Heidi Pratt. 47. It is one of the purposes of civil penalties to punish abhorrent conduct. 48. It is a purpose of civil penalties to act as a deterrent to conduct that is against society's values. 49. In considerinp; the appropriate levd of exemplary damages it is a mitigating factor that Ma.thew Davis has been sentenced to life in prison. 50. It is an aggravating factor that Mathew Davis acted with malice and that his actions resulted in the death of Heidi Pratt, an<l that he also committed the crime of Arson and set the residence on fire. 51. Further, the court finds that Matthew Davis's actions deserve lite utmost and strongest possible condemnation from tlle court in orde.r to serve as a deterrent to this type of behavior. 52. In consideration of the above aggravating and mitigating factors, the court finds that on count 1 the award for loss of comfort and society is $500,000 and the punitive tfomages arc $250,000. 53. Because the court declines to speculate regarding whether Ms. Pratt t?xperienced conscious suffering, it also declines to make any award under Count 2 of the Plaintiff's complaint. 54. The Plaintiff is awarded its cost<; for funeral expenses and a grave memoria 1. These expenses are hereby awarded in the amount of $10,011.43. 55. The Plaintiff has sought an award for professional services associated with the probate of Ms. Pratt's estate in the amount of $15,032.09. The court does not take issue with the reasonableness of these fees but mu.st decline to make an award fur them because it concludes th.at they do not fall within the meaning of" pecuniary injuries" provided for in 18-A MRS §2-804(b). 56. In consideration of the preceding findings of fact and conclusions of law, lhc total award for the Plaintiff is $760,011.43 I' I The entry shall be: Judgment is rendered in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the amount of $760,011.43 plus prejudgment interest at the rate of postjudgment interest at the rate of __.l. %'""] C).~J and plus costs. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this judgment into the docket by reference pursuant to the provisions of M.R.Civ.P. 79(a). ·, ,) E. ( ,· ~ Date: September 6, 2017 ) ( :; (_ _L q ... Allen Hunter Active Retired Justice, Superior Court 0 ~ ~ Attorney Party ~ IYl Edwards, Andrew Heidi Lyn Pratt Estate-... Retained Paul Suitter- 3 Person... Retained ~ IYl Edwards, Andrew Representation Type Representation Date 09/18/2015 09/18/2015
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
