Dalphonse v. St. Laurent & Sons, Inc.

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 23, 2010
DocketANDre-01-19
StatusUnpublished

This text of Dalphonse v. St. Laurent & Sons, Inc. (Dalphonse v. St. Laurent & Sons, Inc.) 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
Dalphonse v. St. Laurent & Sons, Inc., (Me. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION . DOCKET NO. RE-0rl-i9\ . If.)., I V,IYV -A MJJ.. . . .J ,1/)1 J>;!:; ...... ,.r

DAVID A. DALPHONSE and RECEIVED & FILED SYRILLYN L. DALPHONSE, C'--rg ? 'J • tf ..., '.J 2010 Plaintiffs AND . AMENDED SUP£~?8COGGJN v. ORDER OF CONTEMPT - . ,R COURT

ST. LAURENT & SONS, INC.,

Defendant

The following Amended Order of Contempt is to vacate the Court's Order of

Contempt dated February 18, 2010 and hereby enter this new Order of Contempt.

This matter came before the Court on St. Laurent's motion for contempt. Notice

having been duly given and both Plaintiffs having appeared in court and testified, this

contempt matter is ready for decision. St. Laurent seeks to enforce the Court's April 17,

2009 Order adopting the parties' Stipulated Order that required Dalphonse to execute the

contract with the reclamation contractor. The parties had entered a Stipulated Order in

the courtroom on December 4, 2008 and subsequently filed with the Court a signed

Stipulated Order, which was entered by the Court on April 17,2009. Under the

Stipulated Order, a Special Master was to be appointed to oversee the reclamation work

and to report back to the Court once the reclamation work was completed. The Stipulated

Order, as endorsed by the Court, also required Dalphonses' counsel to hold in escrow $104,915 for reclamation. Stipulated Order, ~ 4. These funds were not delivered to

Plaintiff's counsel because Dalphonse refused to proceed with the reclamation plan. l

This is not the first time that St. Laurent sought the enforcement of the Stipulated

Order. Previously, St. Laurent had filed a motion to enforce the Stipulated Order and that

motion'was granted in this Court's Order, dated July 28, 2009, ordering the Dalphonses

to execute the contract with the reclamation contractor within 10 days, to thereafter

cooperate fully in the reclamation work and comply with all terms of the Stipulated

Order.

The Courr finds the following by clear and convincing evidence:

A. David Dalphonse has refused to sign the contract with the reclamation

contractor and he does not intend to comply with this Court's Orders.

B. Syrillyn Dalphonse has refused to sign the contract with the reclamation

contractor and she does not intend to comply with this Court's Orders.

C. Part of the reclamation work will have to be performed on the property of

the Dalphonses. David Dalphonse will not let anyone on his property to perform any

reclamation work and he "will do everything in [his] power to prevent the reclamation

work from taking place." Syrillyn Dalphonse does not know if she will permit anyone

onto her property to perform reclamation work, but she "stands by her husband."

I The Defendant had paid over to Plaintiffs $91,773.90 in satisfaction of other damages (including pre- and post-judgment interest) awarded to Plaintiffs. These funds are separate from the funds that were to be delivered to Plaintiffs counsel for payment of the cost of the reclamation plan. 2 The court learned during the hearing today that the Plaintiffs have filed a complaint with the Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability. The court does not know what the nature of the complaint is. The court also does not believe that she must recuse herselffrom this matter. She is aware that the Plaintiffs believe that her decision was wrong but the court is not aware of any matter that would in any way affect this court's ability to decide this matter fairly and impartially. The court further observes that the Plaintiffs have not asked the court to recuse but only asked that the court not issue a decision on the motion for contempt until the Committee renders its decision. The court declines this invitation from the Plaintiffs.

2 D. David Dalphonse decided after entering into the Stipulated Order that he

no longer agreed with the Order because he learned that "the Defendant tortfeasor stands

to gain a windfall at the expense of his insurance company for the damage he caused the

Plaintiffs." Pltf.'s Motion to Amend or Alter Under M.R.Civ.P. 59(e) of the Order dated

July 28, 2009.

The background to this case is set forth in Dalphonse v. St. Laurent & Son, Inc.,

2007 ME 53, and in Dalphonse v. St. Laurent & Sons, Inc., Androscoggin Superior

Court, Docket No. RE-OI-019, Judgment, March 16,2009 (Wheeler, J). The Dalphonses

ignore the fact that this is court-ordered reclamation work that has not been changed in

any court order. Indeed, the Law Court stated, "Nor do we disturb the terms of the

reclamation plan described by the court in its judgment." 2007 ME ~ 22. The only

change from the original order relating to reclamation was the cost of additional fill

necessary to execute the reclamation. Id. This is a case in which the only issue with

respect to reclamation is who should do the work and how much it will cost. The

Stipulated Order provided answers to that question by requiring a Special Master to

oversee the reclamation project. The cost of reclamation continues to be an issue in this

case because there is no information whether the delay caused by Plaintiffs will cause the

reclamation plan to cost more or less than originally anticipated.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

I. David Dalphonse has failed and refused to comply with this Court's

orders dated April 17, 2009 and July 28, 2009 requiring that he execute the reclamation

contract and is therefore adjudged in contempt.

3 2. Syrillyn Dalphonse has failed and refused to comply with this Court's

Orders dated April 17,2009 and July 28, 2009 requiring that she execute the reclamation

3. David Dalphonse has failed and refused to comply with this Court's Order

dated July 28, 2009 requiring that he cooperate fully in the reclamation work and comply

with all terms of the Stipulated Order and is therefore adjudged in contempt.

4. Syrillyn Dalphonse has failed and refused to comply with this Court's

Order dated July 28, 2009 requiring that she cooperative fully in the reclamation work

and comply with all terms of the Stipulated Order and is therefore adjudged in contempt.

5. David and Syrillyn Dalphonse have until Wednesday, March 3, 2010 to

sign the reclamation contract.

6. In the event that they fail to sign the reclamation contract, the Court

hereby appoints Julia Pitney, Esquire, or another attorney in the firm of Drummond and

Drummond, Portland, Maine, to execute the contract pursuant to Rule 70 of the Maine

Rules of Civil Procedure?

7. David and Syrillyn Dalphonse shall fully cooperate with the reclamation

project that shall be performed as anticipated by the parties in the Stipulated Order. The

Court finds that at the time of the hearing on February 18, 2010, the Defendant failed to

demonstrate that the Plaintiffs have the present financial capacity to participate in the cost

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

Related

Dalphonse v. St. Laurent & Son, Inc.
2007 ME 53 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dalphonse v. St. Laurent & Sons, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalphonse-v-st-laurent-sons-inc-mesuperct-2010.