Isherwood v. City of Portland, Maine

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 26, 2010
• Docket: CUMre-09-201
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. DOCKET NO. RE-09-201 JP,vJ- eLA!)') - ;2/~()/O ( '

GREGG W. ISHERWOOD AND DONNA ISHERWOOD,

Plaintiff ORDER v.

CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs', Gregg and Donna Isherwood

("Isherwoods"), motion for preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65(b), as well as

Defendant's, City of Portland ("City"), motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The

court denies both motions as discussed below.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The majority of facts involved in this case are undisputed. In or about July 1999,

the Portland Planning Board approved a plan for a new subdivision known as Auburn

Pines to be developed by Neptune Properties. The plan for the subdivision included a

detention pond with a drainage easement in favor of the city of Portland over a portion of

lots 15 and 16. The detention pond is a basin-like structure that captures the drainage

from over 10 acres of adjacent properties and streets. The basin is drained by a

perforated pipe at its bottom and is designed to go dry approximately 72 hours after a

storm event.

1 In 2005, the Isherwoods complained to the City that the detention pond was not

being maintained properly. In response, the City requested that the Isherwoods sign an

easement deed establishing the City's right to access and repair the detention pond. The

easement was executed and the City performed maintenance on the pond. By 2007 the

City had stopped performing any regular maintenance on the pond.

The Isherwoods complained to the City for refusing to perform maintenance. The

Isherwoods contend that because the City failed to maintain the pond, it is now clogged

and will not drain, causing insect and rodent infestations as well as a general eyesore on

their property.

The City, however, contends it has no responsibility to maintain the detention

pond. The City alleges that it entered into a Drainage Maintenance Agreement

("Agreement") I with Neptune prior to the approval of the Auburn Pines subdivision, and

that the Agreement governs the repair responsibilities for the pond---demonstrating that

the property owners are responsible. The City also contends that it had no obligation to

aid in the pond repairs in 2005, nor does it now. The Isherwoods argue that the Drainage

Agreement was never recorded with the registry and is therefore not valid against them

1 The Agreement states that Neptune would: [A]t its own cost and expense and at all times in perpetuity, maintain in good repair and in proper working order under the surface water drainage system as shown on said plan .. . for the benefit of the said City of Portland, all persons in lawful possession of said premises and abutters thereto; further, that the said City of Portland ... may enforce this Agreement by an action at law or in equity...; further, that after giving the OWNER written notice and a reasonable time to perform, the said City of Portland may ... enter upon said premises or any portion thereof for the purpose of performing the aforementioned maintenance of said surface water drainage system in the event of any failure or neglect thereof, the cost and expense thereof to be reimbursed in full to the said City of Portland by OWNER upon demand.

This Agreement shall bind the undersigned only so long as it retains any interest in said premises, and shall run with the land and be binding upon its successors and assigns as their interest may from time to time appear.

2 since they were never given any notice of it. In support of their argument they point to

the Easement Deed requested by the city in 2005, and argue that since it does not

reference the Agreement but instead gives the City a right to maintain the pond the City is

responsible for the pond's repairs.

The Isherwoods filed a complaint in this court on November 2, 2009 alleging:

declaratory judgment, duty to maintain the detention pond (Count I); violation of duty to

maintain and keep in repairs ditches, drains, and culverts pursuant to 23 M.R.S.A. § 3251

(Count II); statutory nuisance according to 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701 (Count III). On that same

day the Plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting relief in the

form of mandating that the city maintain the detention pond. On November 25, 2009, the

City filed a motion to dismiss which included an objection to the motion for preliminary

injunction. The Plaintiffs filed an objection to the motion to dismiss and reply in support

of the motion for preliminary injunction on November 30, 2009. The City filed a reply

to the objection to their motion to dismiss on December 7,2009.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency

of the complaint and, on such a challenge, 'the material allegations ofthe complaint must

be taken as admitted. '" Shaw v. Southern Aroostook Comm. Sch. Dist., 683 A.2d 502,

503 (Me. 1996) (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)). In determining

whether a motion to dismiss should be granted, the court considers "the allegations in the

complaint in relation to any cause of action that may reasonably be inferred from the

complaint," and a claim will be dismissed only "when it appears beyond a doubt that the

3 plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any set of facts that he [or she] might prove in

support of his [or her] claim." Saunders v. Tisher, 2006 ME 94, ~ 8, 902 A.2d 830, 832

(quoting Johanson v. Dunnington, 2001 ME 169, ~ 5, 785 A.2d 1244, 1246). This is a

question of law. Bean v. Cummings, 2008 ME 18, ~ 7, 939 A.2d 676, 679.

As a preliminary issue, the court must determine whether it should consider the

additional documents attached to the City's motion to dismiss in ruling on the motion.

The general rule is that only the facts alleged in the complaint may be considered on a

motion to dismiss. Moody v. State Liquor and Lottery Comm 'n, 2004 ME 20, ~ 8, 843

A.2d 43, 47. However, a narrow exception allows the court to consider "official public

documents, documents that are central to the plaintiffs claim, and documents referred to

in the complaint, without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for a summary

judgment when the authenticity of such documents is not challenged." Id. at ~~ 9-10.

These documents then merge into the pleadings. Id The Law Court has stated, "the

purpose for this exception is that if courts could not consider these documents, 'a plaintiff

with a legally deficient claim could survive a motion to dismiss simply by failing to

attach a dispositive document on which it relied.'" Id (quoting Pension Benefit Guar.

Corp. v. White Conso!. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)).

In this case, the Defendant presents two exhibits not attached to the Plaintiffs'

complaint-the Drainage Agreement and the Isherwood Deed. See Defs. Exs. A, B.

Neither of these documents is a certified copy or authenticated. Nevertheless, the

Plaintiffs have not questioned the authenticity of these documents. For efficiency and

judicial economy the Court assumes, without deciding, the authenticity of these

documents in considering the substance of Defendant's motion.

4 A. The Drainage Maintenance Agreement

The Defendant argues that the Agreement between it and Neptune Properties

clarifies who is responsible for maintaining the detention pond. However, the Agreement

was never recorded in the registry and Plaintiffs claim they are not bound by its terms, as

they were never given notice of it prior to purchasing the subject property. See 33

M.R.S.A. § 201? The Defendant contends that, despite the Agreement being unrecorded,

the Plaintiffs are still bound by it as they had implied/constructive notice of its terms.

To determine whether an unrecorded easement3 is valid against a landowner the

facts of the case must be assessed to determine whether the landowner had actual or

implied actual notice. See Gagner v. Kittery Water District, 385 A.2d 206,207 (Me.

1978); see also Shacliford & Gooch, Inc. v. B & B Coastal Enterprises, Inc., 479 A.2d

1312 (Me. 1984) (finding that where defendant had actual notice of plaintiffs right-of­

way defendant's argument that the right-of-way was invalid because it was not recorded

until after the recording of a subsequent installment sale contract had no merit). As such,

the court concludes that further discovery must occur prior to determining whether the

Plaintiffs had notice of the Agreement.

B. Duty to Maintain the Pond Under 23 MR.S.A. § 3251

The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiff's claim for maintenance under 23

M.R.S.A. § 3251 must be dismissed because Neptune properties, a private entity, not the

City constructed the detention pond.

Section 3251 states:

The municipal officers of a town may at the expense of the town construct

2 Plaintiffs also contend that they were not parties to the agreement; therefore, they are not bound by the contract. 3 Assuming arguendo that the agreement is an easement.

5 ditches, drains and culverts to carry water away from any highway or road therein, and over or through any lands of persons or corporations, when they deem it necessary for public convenience or for the proper care of such highway or road, provided no such ditch, drain or culvert shall pass under or within 20 feet of any dwelling house without the consent of the owner thereof ... If such town does not maintain and keep in repair such ditches, drains and culverts, the owner or occupant of the lands through or over which they pass may have his action against the town for damages thereby sustained.

The court concludes, when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the

Plaintiffs as it must as this stage in the proceedings, that the Plaintiffs have adequately

plead a claim for maintenance under 23 M.R.S.A. § 3251. The Plaintiffs have plead that

the drainage system is a public one that serves the streets in the neighborhood that are

City owned. The Plaintiffs have also plead that the City undertook the task of repairing

the detention system in 2005 that involved the system's reconstruction. The Plaintiffs

have also plead that the City maintained the system until 2007. The court concludes that

this is adequate to sustain a claim under 23 M.R.S.A. § 3251. 4

C. Maine Torts Claim Act

The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs' claim for nuisance pursuant to 17

M.R.S.A. § 2701 5 should be dismissed as it is barred by 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103. 6 The court

agrees.

4 The court makes no conclusive determination at this juncture whether the repairs by the City rise to the level of reconstruction or were truly just repairs. Further discovery is needed to make this determination. An argument is also made that the Neptune Properties build this drainage system for the benefit of the City; hence, the City constructed the drainage system. s 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701 states: Any person injured in his comfort, property or the enjoyment of his estate by a common and public or a private nuisance may maintain against the offender a civil action for his damages, unless otherwise specially provided. 6 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103 states:

1. IMMUNITY. Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, all governmental entities shall be immune from suit on any and all tort claims seeking recovery of damages. When immunity is removed by this chapter, any claim for damages shall be brought in accordance with the terms of this chapter.

6 The Law Court has expressly held that a governmental entity is "immune from

liability for damages for trespass and nuisance under the Maine Tort Claims Act."

Whalen v. Town ofLivermore, 588 A,2d 319,322 (Me. 1991). As such the Defendant's

motion to dismiss count III of the complaint as it relates to damages is GRANTED.

Although the Plaintiffs' claims for nuisance damages are barred by 14 M.R.S.A. §

8103(1), that section expressly applies only to "tort claims seeking recovery of damages."

Count III of the Complaint seeks damages and an abatement of an alleged nuisance

through an injunction. The court concludes that the injunction and abatement request is

not barred by the express terms of the Maine Tort Claims Act. Although Whalen

suggests that an action for abatement may nevertheless be barred as an action for

damages, it does not appear that the injunctive relief issue was specifically addressed, and

other cases appear to establish that prospective injunctive relief against governmental

entities is not barred by sovereign immunity. See Whalen, 588 A. 2d at 322; see also

Moody v. Commissioner, DHS, 661 A, 2d 156, 158-59 (Me. 1995); Wellman v.

Department ofHuman Services, 574 A, 2d 879, 884 n. 11 (Me. 1990).

II. Preliminary Injunction.

The Plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injlUlction to require that the City

maintain the detention pond.

For preliminary injunctive relief to be granted per M.R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1), the

moving must demonstrate: (1) that it will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction,

(2) that any harm to the opposing party if an injunction is granted is outweighed by the

harm to the movant if an inj lUlction is not granted, (3) a likelihood of success on the

merits, and (4) that the public interest will not be adversely affected by such relief.

7 Ingraham v. University ofMaine at Orono, 441 A,2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982) (citations

omitted). lfthe movant cannot meet all four criteria, an injunction will not be granted.

Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Dept. ofAgriculture, Food, and Rural Resources, 2003

ME 140, , 10, 837 A,2d 129, 132-133.

The court finds, in light of the aforementioned discussion regarding the remaining

questions as to whose duty it is to maintain and repair the detention pond, the Plaintiffs

have not demonstrated a probable or substantial likelihood of success on the merits to

warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Because Plaintiffs have not satisfied

this essential element for a preliminary injunction, their motion must be denied and the

court need not address the remaining elements for injunctive relief.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. The Defendant's

motion to dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to

M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

DATED: February 26,2010 ~O--~ e A, Wheeler, Justice

8 F COURTS md County )OX 287 ne 04112-0287

SIGMUND SCHUTZ ESQ PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS & HALEY PO BOX 9546 PORTLAND ME 04112-9546

)F COURTS land County Box 287 line 04112-0287

DANIELL WEST-CHUTA ESQ 389 CONGRESS ST PORTLAND ME 04101