Beaulieu v. Ringuette

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: December 23, 2009
• Docket: ANDcv-08-790
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, SS. LOCATION: Lewiston CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-08-790 \.Jrl}1- frrJV [Go / ~/'J /)Oaq J

JEANNE L. BEAULIEU,

Plaintiff DECISION AND JUDGMENT v.

BERTRAND RINGUETTE,

Defendant

This matter came on to be heard before the undersigned justice on November 9,

2009. Plaintiff was represented by Scott J. Lynch, Esq., and defendant was represented

by Brian D. Condon, Esq.

Plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against the defendant, Count I alleging that

defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiff; and Count II alleging,

pursuant to 33 M.R.S.A. §§ 1021-1025 that plaintiff made an improvident transfer of

funds to defendant and that plaintiff is entitled to void that transfer.

Defendant has filed a counterclaim against plaintiff for breach of contract.

The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made by the court after

careful review of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the

parties. Those findings submitted by the parties, if they are not adopted by the court

and are inconsistent with the court's findings and conclusions and judgment, should be

considered as being rejected.

Plaintiff is a sixty-two year old woman who has had problems with her health, is

bipolar, and became disabled and unable to work around 1998. She suffered a stroke in 2001. She has a small pension check and receives social security. She cohabitated with

the defendant for a number of years and was somewhat dependent on defendant,

especially for her transportation and some other needs as well.

Defendant owned an Isuzu Rodeo for transportation which he provided to the

relationship and which was in defendant's name.

In August of 2007, $16,031.25 was withdrawn from a bank account at Sabattus

Regional Credit Union to purchase a 2005 Jeep Cherokee, a vehicle that was titled and

registered in defendant's name only. Even though both names were on the account,

pursuant to 18-A M.R.S.A. § 6-103(a), the account was almost entirely the property of

plaintiff, she being the party who made almost all of the contributions to the account.

The court finds that plaintiff made a substantial contribution toward the

purchase of the Jeep, namely almost all of the $16,031.25, and that defendant

contributed the $2400 trade-in of the Isuzu Rodeo, and also contributed his time and

services by transporting plaintiff to her medical and other appointments.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

About five months after the purchase of the Jeep, the relationship of the parties

ended, and defendant retained the Jeep and refused to pay any compensation to the

plaintiff. Unjust enrichment can occur when (1) a benefit has been conferred on the

defendant by the plaintiff; (2) there is an appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of

the benefit; and (3) when in the circumstances of the case, is inequitable for the

defendant to retain the benefit. Thibeault v. Brackett, 938 A.2d 27, 32 (citing Aladdin Elec.

Assocs. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 654 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Me. 1994)).

Here, the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the plaintiff by paying by far the greater

share of the payment for the Jeep Cherokee, the defendant was aware of that benefit,

2 and in these circumstances, where the relationship between the parties ended five

months following the purchase of the Jeep, and the defendant retained title to and sole

possession of the vehicle, it is inequitable for the defendant to retain that benefit

without paying some compensation to the plaintiff.

The amount of benefit conferred on the defendant that the court finds inequitable

for the defendant to retain is $5000. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to recover on

Count I of her complaint in the amount of $5000.

IMPROVIDENT TRANSFER

The court is not persuaded that the transfer of money from the Sabattus Regional

Credit Union account to the plaintiff triggers the presumption of undue influence or

constitutes an improvident transfer within the meaning of 33 M.R.S.A. §§ 1021-1025, the

ImprOVident Transfers of Title Act. Although plaintiff was sixty years old at the time of

the transfer, there was not a sufficient disparity of position and influence between the

parties, and plaintiff was not sufficiently dependent: on defendant within the meaning

of the statute. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to prove the elements of an

improvident transfer.

COUNTERCLAIM-BREACH OF CONTRACT

The court is not persuaded that there was any breach of contract by the plaintiff

and that defendant has failed to prove the elements of his counterclaim for breach of

contract.

The entry is:

Count I of plaintiff's complaint, unjust enrichment: judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5000 plus interest and costs.

3 Count II of plaintiff's complaint, improvident transfer of title: judgment for the defendant.

Defendants counterclaim for breach of contract: judgment for the plaintiff.

(

DATED: Decembep)3 ,2009