Chrisall v. Thibodeau

Maine Superior

Chrisall v. Thibodeau

DecidedMarch 10, 2006

DocketPENre-05-008

StatusUnpublished

This text of Chrisall v. Thibodeau (Chrisall v. Thibodeau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chrisall v. Thibodeau, (Me. Super. Ct. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE _- SUPERIOR COURT & ~h~.;-&+o ..-.---_ -. PENOBSCOT, ss. ?- I CIVIL ACTION S E ~ : E R I c~ R ~uar Docket No. RE-05-008 ,.,( ;l l 1 , ' - 1 CHRISALL, / PEHQ&SC.OT CDGPt/TY / I 1 1

Plaintiff 1 ) v. ) OPINION: ORDER ON MOTIONS 1 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MICHAEL E. THIBODEAU, ) 1 Defendant 1

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's, Chrisall, Motion for Summary

Judgment, and Defendant's, Michael Thibodeau, Counter Motion for Summary

Judgment. The court has reviewed the parties' submissions on these motions.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as well as a declaratory judgment setting forth the

rights of the parties as follows:

Plaintiff is the owners of real property described in the deed recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 9608, Page 257; Defendant has placed and maintains a mobile home, deck, septic system and dock which extend onto Plaintiff's Parcel; Defendant has no right to use, damage, or trespass on Plaintiff's Parcel.

Plaintiff's Complaint also contains a charge of trespass and demands damages including

double Plaintiff's actua! damages, attorney's fees and costs. Defendant filed a

counterclaim claiming ownership of the disputed parcel by way of adverse possession.

A. Standard of Review A party is entitled to summary judgment when the record shows that there is no

genuine issue of material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); See e.g., Darlings v. Ford Motor Co., 2003 ME 21, g 14, 8 17 A.2d

877, 879. To survive a motion for a summary judgment, the opposing party must

produce evidence that, if produced at trial, would be sufficient to resist a motion for a

judgment as a matter of law. Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 1997 M E 99, 8, 694 A.2d 924,926.

"'A fact is aaterial when it has the petencia1 tc' affect the outcome of the suit.'" Prescott

v. State Tax Assessor, 1998 M E 250, J 5 , 7 2 1 A.2d 169, 172. An issue is genuine "when

sufficient evidence requires a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the

truth at trial." MP Assocs. v. Liberty, 200 1 ME 22, 'J 12, 77 1 A.2d 1040, 1044.

Essentially the Court determines whether there is a genuine issue of material fact

by comparing the parties' statement of material facts and corresponding record

references. See e.g., Corey v. Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, 1999 M E 196. 8, 742 A.2d

933, 938. The court will view the evidence in light most favorable to the non-moving

party. See e.g., Steeves v. Bernstein, SI-~ur,Suuyer & Nelson, P.A., 1998 ME 2 10, 11,

718 A.2d 186.

B. Applicable Law

Sunzmar;, Judgment !. Plaintifls LWotio~zjbr

Rule 56 establishes the procedure parties must strictly follo\v when seeking or

defending a motion for summary judgment.' RuIe 5 6 requirss the moving party to file a

"separate, short and concise statement of the material facts, set forth in numbered

. -

' EPfective January 1 : 2001, M.R. Civ. P. 7(dj(l j \vas amended and incorporated into M.R. Civ. P. 56(h). paragraphs, as to which the moving party contends there are no genuine issues to be

tried." 1M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(l). The party opposing summary judgment must submit a

statement of material facts that are in dispute and which are supported by record

references pursuant to Rule 56. The Court may disregard any statement of fact the parties

have failed to support by a specific citation to the proper record material. '

The Law Court was very clear in Levirle that:

A statement of materia! facts must direct!^ refer the court :G the specific portions of the record from which each fact is drawn. The court is neither required nor permitted to independently search a record to find support for facts offered by a party. In the absence of specific record references, a proffered fact is not properly before the court and cannot provide a basis for judgment. Levine v. R.B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, 770 A.2d 653, 99 (internal citations omitted).

Additionally, the nonmoving party rnust file a memorandu~nof law in opposition to the

motion for summary judgment and copies of the corresponding record references. Id. at B

Here, thc Defendant's Amended Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment

does not satisfy Rule 56 requirements. Defendant did not properly contest any of

Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts. Defendants' Opposing Statement of Material

Facts does not admit, deny, or qualify each of Plaintiff's material facts by reference to

each numbered paragraph with support by a record citation as required by Rule 56(h)(2).

4 s such, Plaintiff's ancontested material fats are d e e ~ e dadmitted. See e.g., Prntt v.

Ottum, 761 A.2d 3 13, 3 18 (Me. 2003). A citation consisting of "See Affidavit of Shyka"

without a specific reference to para,oraph or page number violates M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4)

' M.R.CIV. P. 56(c) provides in part: Judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings. depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, referred to in the statements required by subdivision (11) show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact set forth in those statements and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. and shall not be considered by this Court. See e.g., Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2002 M E 67, 7 15,

796 A.2d 57, 60-6 1 (Izolding. if a proffered fact is not accompanied by a specific record

reference then a court may not consider the fact). Defendant's Amended Response to

Pla~ntiff'sSOMF did not remedy the deficiencies present in his in~tialResponse.

Defendant has technically admitted all of the statements contained in Plaintiff's SOMF.

Summary Judgment is therefore granted in favor of the Plaintiff.

2. D ~ ,.., f 's~ Inn "ILL ~~L,...L V I~LSf L~ Lr~M L ,JYJI~tiiginen: I I ,+; ~ Z G ~ $ C1ctn~I./zg Title by Adverse Possessiorz

To successfully acquire title by adverse possession, the adverse possessor "must

prove by a preponderance of the evidence 'possession for a 20-year period that is actual,

open, visible, notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, continuous, and exclusive. Eaton

v. Town of IVells, 2000 M E 176, 27,760 A.2d 232,242 (qlloting Dowlry v. iWorency,

1999 ME 137, 9 19, 737 A.2d 1061, 1068-69). "Adverse possession presents a mixed

question of law and fact...what acts of dominion will result in creating title by adverse

possession is a question of law.. .whether those acts were really done, and the

circumstances under which they were done, raise questions of fact." Striefel v. Charles-

Keyt-Leaman P'ship. 1999 M E 1 11, ?, 733 A.2d 984, 989 (quoting IYebber v. Barker

Lumber Co., 12 1 Me. 259, 263, 116 A.2d 586, 587 (1922)).

Defendant's claim of adverse possession fails as a matter of law because the

D e f e ~ d a n thas not s h ~ ; r r ,that the hostile requirement was present. In fact, it appears the

Defendant has demonstrated the opposite. Defendant states he "always understood he

owned the camp. . .." OSILIF. 9 6. Additionaiiy, even if arg~iendothe hostile

requirement was met, there are genuine issues of material fact relating to Defendant's

claim, and as such. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. For example, there is a genuine dispute as to whether the Defendant's actions prior to 1987

were "open", "visible", and "notorious". Pl.'s Opp. Memo.

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