Buxton v. McGuire

347 A.2d 600, 1975 Me. LEXIS 314
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedNovember 17, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 347 A.2d 600 (Buxton v. McGuire) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Buxton v. McGuire, 347 A.2d 600, 1975 Me. LEXIS 314 (Me. 1975).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Eleanor McGuire has appealed, pursuant to Rule 73(a) M.R.C.P., from a judgment of the Superior Court (Hancock County) which rejected defendant’s claim of sole ownership in a particular tract of land and adjudicated that plaintiffs Philip W. Buxton, Jr. and Richard A. Buxton had a two-thirds interest therein as tenants in common with defendant.

We must dismiss this appeal because the judgment purportedly appealed from is not a final judgment.

Defendant filed a total of six pleadings designated as counterclaims, motions to amend counterclaims or motions to add counterclaims. The six pleadings asserted three claims, one of which concerned a right of way, the second a so-called spite fence and the third sought compensation from the plaintiffs for a fractional share of the assessments, betterments and taxes paid by the defendant on account of the property at issue.

The right of way claim was voluntarily withdrawn by the defendant, and the claim concerning the spite fence was disposed of by the decree of the Superior Court. No adjudication has been made, however, upon defendant’s claim for compensation.

The report of the referee recommended that the claim for compensation be dismissed without prejudice but the record discloses neither a specific acceptance of the referee’s report by the presiding Justice nor an incorporation of the recommendation of the referee in the judgment. The judgment entirely omits mention of defendant’s demands for compensation for the share of the assessments, betterments and taxes allegedly paid by defendant.

Since this counterclaim still awaits disposition, and the presiding Justice has made no certificate as required by Rule 54(b) M.R.C.P. in a case involving multiple claims, the judgment before us remains interlocutory. The appeal must be dismissed.

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

All Justices concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Planning Board of the Town of Naples v. Michaud
435 A.2d 742 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1981)
Cyr v. Cyr
429 A.2d 210 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1981)
Parent v. Parent
425 A.2d 975 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
347 A.2d 600, 1975 Me. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buxton-v-mcguire-me-1975.