Dawson v. Lauderdale

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: November 6, 2019
• Docket: PISre-19-01
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT PISCATAQUIS, SS. DKT. NO. PIS. SC-RE-2019-01

CINDY DAWSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) JEAN C. LAUDERDALE, ) ) Defendant. )

Hearing was held on the defendant's motion to dismiss on June 24, 2019. The plaintiff was

present and represented by counsel, Richard McCarthy, Esq., while the defendant was present and

represented by counsel, Beth Seaney, Esq.

Plaintiff/purchaser has filed a complaint for specific performance asking the Court to

compel the defendant/seller to perform the terms of a purchase and sale agreement. Plaintiff alleges

that she and George I(rneger resided in a dwelling located on real estate in Greenville, Maine, owned

by Krueger. Upon his death, Dawson, acting as his personal representative, deeded the real estate to

his heir, Lauderdale. Contemporaneously, Lauderdale and Dawson entered into a contract for the

sale of the real estate to Dawson, to close on October 19, 2019, which was extended by agreement

to October 26, 2019. Dawson alleges that Lauderdale has refused to execute the necessary deed and

sell her the property pursuant to their agreement.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is premised on the assertion that this real estate transaction

was part of an agreement to settle the estate that included the requirement that Dawson was to turn

over certain items of Krneger's personal property to Lauderdale. Lauderdale has asserted that

Dawson failed to turn over the property and insists that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction

over this transaction. "A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the material allegations of

which must be taken as admitted ...." Packge11 v. Bm1stei11, 2019 ME 90, ,r 16. "A dismissal is only

proper 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 r,is] claim. Id. Applying this standard to plaintiffs complaint, the

Court must deny the motion to dismiss. 1 According to 14 M.R.S. § 6051(3), the Superior Court has

jurisdiction to compel the specific performance of written contracts. Plaintiffs complaint alleges that

the parties assented to be bound by its material terms, and the contract is sufficiently definite to

enable a court to ascertain its meaning and define the legal liabilities of the parties. See FonutAssocs.

v. Passamaquoddy Tribe, 2000 ME 195, ,r 9. Specific performance may be appropriate to enforce a

contract for the sale of land because of the uniqueness of real estate. See O 'Hallom11 v. Oechslie, 402

A.2d 67, 70 (Me. 1979). Since the Superior Court has jurisdiction to order specific performance

pursuant to this sufficient complaint, the motion to dismiss is denied.

The Entry Is: Motion to Dismiss DENIED

/) 1

Dated: November 6, 2019 11 /l/(111 ~/1 1v/1 l~------) WILLIAM ANDERSON JUSTICE, SUPERIOR COURT

t Because this is a motion to dismiss, the Court cannot consider the factual assertions in the motion because a motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint only. To urge dismissal because the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over this case such that the superior court's jurisdiction is trumped, or to express any other jurisdictional infirmities, plaintiff would have to present evidence or, at least, provide affidavits.