Heller v. Coyne

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedApril 6, 2011
DocketCUMre-10-278
StatusUnpublished

This text of Heller v. Coyne (Heller v. Coyne) 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
Heller v. Coyne, (Me. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-10-278 (;::? N /'11- C U N\- 'if 0 {!

BRADLEY HELLER and ELEANOR HELLER,

Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants

v. ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SUSAN COYNE,

Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff

Before the court is the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. M.R. Civ. P. 56.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that they have a prescriptive

easement across a sandy beach area. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendant has

interfered with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property. In the motion for

summary judgment, the plaintiffs now claim that the defendant's property does not

include the beach area in dispute.

As the plaintiffs admit, the allegation that the defendant does not own the sandy

beach area at issue is raised for the first time in the motion for summary judgment.

(PIs.' Mem. at 2 n.1.) Accordingly, that allegation is not appropriate for a motion for

summary judgment. Polk v. Town of Lubec, 1999 Me. Super. LEXIS 204, *6 (Me. Super.

JuI. 2, 1999), affd, 2000 ME 152, 756 A.2d 510. Pursuant to Rule 8, a pleading must

contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief, and ... a demand for judgment for the relief which the pleader seeks." M.R. Civ.

P. 8(a). The Law Court has recognized that the purpose of Rule 8(a) is to provide the

opposing party "fair notice of the claim." Polk, 2000 ME 152,

defendant was not on notice that the plaintiffs intended to contest her ownership of the

disputed beach area. 1

The entry is

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Date: April 6, 2011 Nancy Mills Justice, Superior Court

1 In fact, the plaintiffs' complaint specifically refers to "the Defendant's property." (See CompI.

01 0000000170 .=. SN:.;,O.=. W:. :.fL. _T;:;.;E=..:R:..;;R;.;,;Y::.. .- _ PO BOX 275 CUMBERLAND CTR ME 04021 F SUSAN COYNE DEF RTND OS/28/2010

02 0000004222 . ; .T; ; ;.E; ; ;.EL;; ;.,L,.f. . ;E=..:L=..:L;;;.;I;;;.;O;;.. ;T;;.. ;T;;.. . .;;R-'-­ _ 142 HIGH STREET SUITE 219 PORTLAND ME 04101 F BRADLEY HELLER PL RTND 05/14/2010

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

Related

Polk v. Town of Lubec
2000 ME 152 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2000)
E. N. Nason, Inc. v. Land-Ho Development Corp.
403 A.2d 1173 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Heller v. Coyne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heller-v-coyne-mesuperct-2011.