Davis v. Morse

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: August 29, 2008
• Docket: CUMre-08-094
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-OR-094' fJt""" f\ \..~. . . ~ \-r .,.{ \;'( q .~- D/ T~ 7..\ .;>/ ';)IJ! ZACHARY DAVIS, 2: JS Plaintiff ORDER ON DEFENDANT TOWN OF CASCO'S MOTION TO v. DISMISS

TIMOTHY A. MORSE, and THE TIMOTHY A. MORSE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and TOWN OF CASCO, and KENNETHF. FARRAR, Defendants

Before the Court is Defendant Town of Casco's 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Count

VIII and Count IX insofar as it seeks declaratory relief against the Town of Casco.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 15, 2008, Plaintiff Zachary Davis ("Davis") filed an eleven-count

Complaint asserting claims against Timothy Morse ("Morse"), Timothy A. Morse

Family Limited Partnership ("Morse Partnership"), the Town of Casco (Town), and

Kenneth F. Farrar ("Farrar").

Defendants Morse and the Morse Partnership are the sellers of the property that

is the subject of this lawsuit. Neither Morse individually nor the Morse Partnership

filed an answer to the Complaint. Accordingly, the clerk entered a default against both

parties on June 20,2008. On July 9, 2008, Davis filed an unopposed Motion for

Attachment and Trustee Process against Morse and the Morse Partnership. The Court

granted this motion on August 18,2008.

The claims against Defendant Farrar are based on his work as a Maine licensed

surveyor and his involvement in the preparation of the disputed subdivision plans. Farrar is not involved in the motion currently before the Court.

Counts VIII and IX of the Plaintiff's Complaint implicate the Town. Count VIII is

brought against the Town only and seeks a declaratory judgment establishing the

invalidity of a subdivision approved by the Town. Specifically, Davis urges the Court

to hold that the Town "should be required to declare that its previous approval was

obtained through misrepresentations and/ or error and that the conditions have not

been satisfied." Complaint

under Davis' deed pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5954 (2007) against the Town and others.

Specifically, Davis seeks "judicial construction and determination of the validity of his

deed and a declaration of his rights, status or other relations thereunder and a

construction of the subdivision approval conditions and directives ... and the validity

of the subdivision approval." Complaint

BACKGROUND On November 13, 2005, Davis entered into an option agreement to purchase a lot

for $35,000 in a proposed subdivision located in Casco, Maine. The option agreement

was conditioned on the Casco Planning Board's ("Board") approval of the subdivision.

Due to some changes in the subdivision plan, Davis ultimately purchased a different lot

in a nearby proposed subdivision rather than the lot specified in the original option

contract. In late November 2005, the Morse Partnership submitted the subdivision

plans to the Board. After several revisions, the Board approved the Stone Crest Estates

Subdivision ("Subdivision") on or about May 16, 2007 and attached a listed of

conditions to the approval. The conditions relevant to the current dispute require that

setbacks and other demarcations be displayed on the land upon the issuance ofa building

permit.

On June I, 2007, Davis paid the balance owed on the option agreement and

2 received a deed to a lot within the Subdivision. At that time, Davis believed he was

purchasing a lot on which he could construct a home that would comply with the deed

restriction that forbade any house having less than 2000 square feet of living space. 1

Given the setback limitations, Davis could not build a home larger than 408 square feet.

Davis brought this problem to Morse and Farrar. However, attempts at amicably

resolving this dispute failed. Plaintiff subsequently brought this action seeking, inter

alia, rescission of the deed; damages for misrepresentation, unfair trade practices,

breach of contract, negligence; and declaratory relief.

The motion before the Court is limited to testing the legal sufficiency of Counts

VIII and IX against the Town.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to M.R.Civ. P.

12(b)(6), the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint are accepted as true. See e.g., McAfee

v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463 (Me. 1994). "A dismissal is proper only when it appears beyond

doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in

support of his claim." Doe v. District Attorney, 2007 ME 139, err 20, 932 A.2d 552, 558

(citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

The threshold issue is whether the Plaintiff is barred from bringing a declaratory

judgment action against the Town after failing to appeal a planning board decision

pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B.

1 The Warranty Deed provides that "[a]ll dwelling places on the premises shall have no less than 2,000 square feet of living space, not including barns, sheds, garages or breezeways." Warranty Deed Exhibit A tJ 5. This restriction is binding on all property owners in the Stone Crest Estates Subdivision. See id. tJ 6.

3 The Town contends that Davis cannot challenge the subdivision approval or the

conditions therein through a declaratory judgment action. The Uniform Declaratory

Judgments Act states that:

"[a]ny person interested under a deed ... whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument statute, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. 14 M.R.S.A. § 5954 (2007). The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act "does not provide a

self-help device for parties who have failed to timely appeal a municipal administrative

decision to gain an extension or revival of the time to appeal and reopen a decision that

has otherwise become final." Sold, Inc. v. Town of Gorham, 2005 ME 24, 110, 868 A.2d

172, 176. In short, an "after-the-fact challenge" is pursued in vain when a party has

failed to timely appeal an administrative adjudicatory action pursuant to Rule 80B. Id.

115,868 A.2d at 177.

Unless there is specific statutory authority, challenges to municipal

administrative actions must be filed "within 30 days after notice of any action or refusal

to act of which review is sought." M.R. Civ. P. 80B(b). Davis could have participated in

the Board's review because his option was conditioned on the Town's approval of the

subdivision plans. See e.g., Lewis v. Town of Rockport, 2005 ME 44, 1 8, 870 A.2d 107, 110

(stating that an "abutting landowner has a particularized injury if there is a conceivable

injury."); Norris Family Associates, LLC v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 102, 116, 879

A.2d 1007, 11012-13 (stating that "party" is interpreted very broadly and that

participation in such proceedings may be formal or informal). It is undisputed that

Davis did not file a Rule 80B appeal after the Board issued its approval on or about May

16, 2007. Davis' failure to participate in the administrative proceedings does not

4 provide a legal excuse for his failure to do so. Hence, Davis is time-barred from

challenging the Board's decision.

For the foregoing reasons, the claims against the Town are legally insufficient

under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The Defendant Town of Casco's Motion to Dismiss Count VIII and the portion of

Count IX that purports to state a claim against the Town of Casco is GRANTED. There

being no claims remaining against Defendant Town of Casco, the Town shall be

dismissed as a party in this action.

Therefore, the entry is:

Defendant Town of Casco's Motion to Dismiss Count VIII is GRANTED

Defendant Town of Casco's Motion to Dismiss the portion of Count IX that purports to state a claim against the Town of Casco is GRANTED.

The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Dated at Portland, Maine this ~tt~ay of --~~MJ4'I-L---, 2008

Ro ert E. Crowley Justice, Superior Court

5 HK. VI""" L.UUM I v =>.0. BOX 287 !OJ MAINE 04112-0287

JOHN CAMPBELL ESQ -- V PO BOX 369 PORTLAND ME 04112-0369

NATALIE BURNS ESQ - (.j:1 ~&vJ­ JENSEN BAIRD GARDNER & H~RY PO BOX 4510 PORTLAND ME 04112

ND, MA\NE 04"~-U~tH

REBECCA FARNUM ESQ - ~..../ .c-;; JASON PAUL DONOVAN ESQ 0' ~ ,..-""'",­ THOMPSON & BOWIE PO BOX 4630 PORTLAND ME 04112-4630