Hawkes & Menhert v. Morse

Superior Court of Maine·Decided October 22, 2007·No. PENcv-06-188·Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT PENOBSCOT, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-06-188 /}) l t 1: 1 > \, (,I . . /< HAWKES & MEHNERT, LLP,

Plaintiff,

v. DECISION AND ORDER

JONATHAN MORSE, and NANCY MORSE, and BOULDER PROPERTIES, LLC, and WORDWRAP SERVICE r - - - - - - -..--- -.---­ CORPORATION, LLC, and FILED & ENTERED GATEWAY PROPERTIES, LLC, and SUPERIOR COURT SAWTOOTH PROPERTIES, INC., APR 1 5 2009 Defendants, PENOBSCOT COUNTY BEV PROPERTIES, LLC,

Intervenor.

This case is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed on August

19,2008 by the plaintiff, Hawkes & Mehnert, LLP, seeking summary judgment as to the

claims of the intervenor, BEV Properties, LLC. Oral arguments on the motion were held

in chambers on December 2, 2008.

BACKGROUND

In February 2005, Attorney Eric Mehnert of Hawkes & Mehnert, LLC agreed to

represent Jonathan Morse and his various business entities, including Boulder Properties,

LLC, regarding a number of litigation matters. Among these matters was a dispute over a

lease agreement between Boulder Properties and one of its tenants, Lutheran Social

Services of New England. On April 22, 2005, Jonathan Morse filed a complaint through

1 Attorney Mehnert, in Cumberland County Superior Court against Lutheran Social

Services seeking damages for breach of the lease agreement. The matter was settled

during mediation in which Lutheran Social Services agreed to pay $60,000 in two equal

installments.

The first installment of $30,000 was paid to Attorney Mehnert. Jonathan Morse

subsequently agreed to release the entire $30,000 to Attorney Mehnert for past, unpaid

legal fees. Jonathan Morse subsequently instructed the attorney for Lutheran Social

Services to make the second payment to Attorney Timothy Keiter, the business attorney

for Jonathan Morse's various businesses. The second payment was made to Attorney

Keiter although he was not involved in the case against Lutheran Social Services and had

not entered an appearance on behalf of Boulder Properties or Jonathan Morse in that case.

Attorney Mehnert subsequently filed the complaint in the present action seeking to

recover unpaid attorney's fees from Jonathan Morse. The $30,000 from the second

installment that had been paid to Attorney Keiter was attached by order of this Court.

On October 29, 2007, this Court granted intervenor status to BEV Properties,

LLC, a company owned by Marvin Morse, the father of Jonathan Morse. BEV Properties

claimed an interest in the funds from the settlement between Boulder Properties and

Lutheran Social Services as the owner of the leased property. However, neither BEV

Properties nor Marvin Morse were parties to the action against Lutheran Social Services

nor were they parties to the lease agreement at issue in that case.

Jonathan Morse elected to go to fee arbitration rather than take this case to trial.

However, Jonathan Morse agreed to have a judgment entered against him before the fee

2 arbitration panel held a hearing on the matter. A judgment in this matter was entered

against Jonathan Morse on March 18, 2008.

While this case was pending and awaiting a hearing before the fee arbitration

panel, Marvin Morse filed a grievance with the Board of Overseers of the Bar alleging

that Attorney Mehnert "stole" settlement funds in the Lutheran Social Services case. On

June 30, 2008 the Board of Overseers dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

DISCUSSION

The plaintiff now seeks summary judgment as to the intervenor's claim to the

funds at issue in this case. "Summary judgment is appropriate when review of the

parties' statements of material facts and the referenced record evidence indicates no

genuine issue of material fact that is in dispute, and, accordingly, the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Dyer v. Dep't of Transp. , 2008 ME 106, ~ 14,

951 A.2d 821, 825. A genuine issue of material fact exists when there is sufficient

evidence to require the fact-finder to choose between competing versions of a fact that

could affect the outcome of the case. Id.; Inkel v. Livingston, 2005 ME 42, ~ 4, 869 A.2d

745,747.

The intervenor claims an interest in the funds at issue in this case by virtue of: (1)

its ownership of the premises leased to Lutheran Social Services; and (2) its alleged status

as a third-party beneficiary to the lease between Boulder Properties and Lutheran Social

Services. Although it appears that BEV Properties did own the property leased to

Lutheran Social Services, that alone does not establish any entitlement to funds owed by

Boulder Properties and Jonathan Morse to Attorney Mehnert.

3 In order to create an enforceable contract benefit in a third-party, the promisee

must intend that such enforceable benefit exist and the intent must be "clear and definite,

whether it is expressed in the contract itself or in the circumstances surrounding its

execution." Devine v. Roche Biomedical Labs., 659 A.2d 868, 870 (Me. 1995). The only

contract at issue in the present case is the one between Jonathan Morse and Attorney

Mehnert by which Attorney Mehnert agreed to provide legal services in exchange for

payment. Therefore, in order to have the benefits of a third-party beneficiary, Marvin

Morse must show that Jonathan Morse intended that he have such benefit by either the

language of the agreement or by the circumstances.

The language of the agreement between Jonathan Morse and Attorney Mehnert

does not demonstrate such intent. Marvin Morse does not dispute the fact that he did not

retain Attorney Mehnert. To the contrary, Marvin Morse now argues that Jonathan

Morse acted without his authorization or knowledge in hiring Attorney Mehnert and in

settling the case. Neither do any circumstances surrounding the contract show a clear and

definite intent by Jonathan Morse that his father, Marvin Morse, be a third-party

beneficiary under the contract. Furthermore, even if Marvin Morse was a third-party

beneficiary to the contract between Attorney Mehnert and Jonathan Morse, Attorney

Mehnert would still be entitled to collect his fees.!

Marvin Morse has alleged that his son, Jonathan Morse, was managing his

property for him and that Jonathan Morse acted beyond the scope of his authority by

1 BEY Properties has claimed third-party beneficiary status in the lease contract between Boulder Properties and Lutheran Social Services; however, that is not the contract at issue in this case. Attorney Mehnert is seeking to recover attorney's fees arising out of a contract between Jonathan Morse and himself. Moreover, the summary judgment record demonstrates no clear and definite intent by Jonathan Morse that Marvin Morse or BEY Properties be third-party beneficiaries under the lease contract. Marvin Morse's ownership of the property may make him an incidental beneficiary but not an intended third-party beneficiary.

4 hiring Attorney Mehnert and settling the case against Lutheran Social Services without

involving his father. This does not give him any cause of action against Attorney

Mehnert. Marvin Morse may not be entirely without remedy; however, he has no remedy

against Attorney Mehnert. If Marvin Morse and Jonathan Morse had a contractual

relationship by which Jonathan Morse managed the affairs of Marvin Morse's property in

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

Hawkes & Menhert v. Morse, (Me. Super. Ct. 2007).

Hawkes & Menhert v. Morse (Hawkes & Menhert v. Morse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dyer v. Department of Transportation
2008 ME 106 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2008)
Inkel v. Livingston
2005 ME 42 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2005)
Devine v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories
659 A.2d 868 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1995)