City of Portland v. Coyne

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: March 18, 2010
• Docket: CUMap-09-42
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss

C:JTY OF PORTLAND, Appellant ORDER ON THE CJTY OF v. PORTLAND'S APPEAL

FRANCIS COYNE, Appellee

BEFORE THE COURT

Defendant-Appellant, the City of Portland (the "City"), appeals the Small

Claims Court's denial of its Motion to Dismiss in a small claims suit brought by

Plaintiff-Appellee Francis Coyne. In response, Coyne filed a Motion to Dismiss

the Appeal alleging the City of Portland lacks standing to appeal.

BACKGROUND

This appeal arises out of a small claints suit filed by Coyne on February

25,2009. Coyne claimed that an employee of the City of Portland destroyed a

sign located at his business on Brighton Avenue, when the employee was

removing snow from the sidewalk with a sidewalk plow. Coyne alleged that the

cost of removing and replacing the destroyed sign was $4,200. On !vlarch 13,

2009, the City of Portland filed a Motion to Dismiss the small claims suit for lack

of jurisdiction. The City 8rgued that the Superior Court had original jurisdiction

because the only basis for the City's liability was pursuant to the Maine Tort

Claims Act (MICA). 14 M.R.S. §§ 8108-8118. Coyne argued that the Small

Claims Court had concurrent jurisdiction \vith the Superior Court because the

alleged damages did not exceed $4,500, the statutory limit for a small claims suit.

14 M.R.S. § 7482. The Small Claims Court denied the City's Motion to Dismiss. A fter a hearing on Coyne's small clain1s sui t, judgment vvas entered for the Ci ty

of Portland on August 13, 2009.

The City of Portland filed a Notice of Appeal on September 14, 2009,

pursuant to Rule l1(d)(2) of the Maine Rules of Small Claims Procedure. The

question of law before this Court is whether the Small Claims Court lacked

jurisdiction to hear a matter that should have been brought pursuant to the

MTCA. 1 Plaintiff-Appellee Coyne claims that the City lacks standing to appeal

because the Small Claims court granted judgment for the City, such that the City

is not an aggrieved party pursuant to M.R.S.C.P. 11(21).

DISCUSSION 1. Standard of Review

The Maine Rules of Small Claims Procedure and the Maine Rules of Civil

Procedure govern small claims appeals from the District Court. "An appeal from

a judgment whenever taken, preserves for review any claim of error ill the

record." M.R. Civ. P. 76D (emphasis added). Generally, a small claims appeal only

addresses questions of law. M.R.S.C.P. 11 (d)(2). Under this standard of review,

thl~ "findings of fact of the District Court shall not be set aside unless clearly

erroneous." M.R. Civ. P. 76D. The Superior Court reviews questions of law de

1l0VO. Francis v. StillSOll, 2000 ME 173, <]I 56, 760 A.2d 209, 220. The City of

Portland's appeal is based on a question of law.

2. The City's Standing to Bring the Appeal

I The original small claims complaint did not specify that the action was based on the Maine Tort Claims Act. It is the position of the City of Portland. and this court agrees, that tort claims against a municipality should be brought pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act.

2 The City of Portland argues that the Small Claims Court erred in denying

the Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that Coyne's

claim should have been made pursuant to the Maine Torts Claims Act.

According to the MTCA, "[t]he Superior Court shall have original jurisdiction

over all claims permitted under this chapter ...." 14 M.R.S. § 8106(1). The

MTCA shields governmental entities from suit on tort claims, subject to limited

exceptions. Adrimlce v. TOWIl of Stl1l1dislI, 687 A.2d 238, 240 (Me. 1996). Under the

MTCA, "except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, all governmental

entities shall be immune from suit on any and all tort claims seeking recovery of

damages." 14 M.R.S. § 8103.

Coyne argues that the City lacks standing to bring this appeal. The court

agrees. According to M.R.S.C.P. 11(a), only "[a]n aggrieved party may appeal

from a judgment of the District Court in a small claims action to the Superior

Court." The Maine Rules of Small Claims Procedure does not identify the ways

in which a party may qualify as an "aggrieved party./I The definition of

"aggrieved party" described in BInney v. Rittnll, 312 A.2d 522 (Me. 1973), is as

follows:

For aggrievance by a judgment or order, such judgment or order must operate prejudicially and directly upon a party's property, pecuniary or personal rights./I

Id. at 525. The City obtained a favorable judgment from the Small Claims Court.

Absent an appeal by Coyne/ the City does not qualify as an aggrieved party to

2 As ofCoyne's December 7. 2009 Motion to Dismiss the City's Appeal. Coyne expressed that he has no intention offiling any further brief in this case. Under Rule II of the Maine Rules of Sma! I Claims Procedure. at party has at most 74 days to appeal a decision. At this point. the time within which Coyne could have appealed has expired because it has been over six months since the Small Claims decision. bring this appeal. The Small Claims court's judgment does not operate

prejudicially or directly on the City's property, pecuniary or personal rights.

Additionally, if the City is concerned about the precedent this case may set, the

court notes that Small Claims judgments do not have any value as precedent. As

provided by 14 M.R5. § 7485, "[a]ny fact found or issue adjudicated in a

proceeding under this chapter may not be deemed found or adjudicated for the

purposes of any other cause of action." 14 M.R.S. § 7485.

DECISION

Therefore, the entry is:

The City's Appeal is DISMISSED. In responding to the appeal Coyne asked the Court for an award of attorney's fees. Coyne's reguest for attorney's fees is DENIED.

Dated at Portland, Maine this _-I-6---,~,--~__ day of _....LiIt~~=-=· ==--"'-"'"----~, 2010. jJ~ R6bertE Crowley Justice, Superior Court

4 Date Filed 10-19-09 CUMBERLAND Docket No. AP-09-42 County

Action S_MA_L_L_C_L~A_I_M_S_A_P_P~E_A_L _

FRANCIS COYNE CITY OF PORTLAND MAINE

Ys.

Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney

C" ALAN BEAGLE, ESQ. ANN M. FREEMAN, ESQ .. 26 CITY CENTER ASSOCIATE CORPORATION COUNSEL PO BOX 7044 CITY OF PORTLAND PORTLAND, ME 04112 389 CONGRESS STREET PORTLAND, ME 04101

Dat~ En;r;" I