Lafortune v. City of Biddeford

Maine Superior

Lafortune v. City of Biddeford

DecidedJanuary 29, 2004

DocketYORap-02-036

StatusUnpublished

This text of Lafortune v. City of Biddeford (Lafortune v. City of Biddeford) 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

Lafortune v. City of Biddeford, (Me. Super. Ct. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-02-036 DOROTHY LAFORTUNE, Plaintiff Vv. ORDER

CITY OF BIDDEFORD, et al.,

Defendants FEB «

Following hearing: 1. Ms. Lafortune’s Motion to Recuse is Denied. 2. Action on Ms. Lafortune’s Motion for Change of Venue is deferred.

3. Ms. Lafortune’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against Mr. Ly is Denied.

4. The City’s Motion to Dismiss will be scheduled by the Clerk for hearing. Mr. Ly’s Motion to Dismiss

Generally, Ms. Lafortune claims that the City failed to follow proper statutory procedure when it took title to her property at 22 Graham Street, Biddeford, for failure to pay real estate taxes. In May, 2002, the City sold this property to Mr. Ly. Thereafter, Ms. Lafortune filed this complaint challenging the validity of both the tax taking and the sale. As the ostensible title owner of this property, Mr. Ly was clearly a necessary party to this case.

While this case was pending, Mr. Ly brought a Forcible Entry and Detainer action in the District Court seeking a determination that he was entitled to possession of

the property. In her response in the District Court, Ms. Lafortune raised the defense of superior title claiming that the City failed to follow the proper statutory procedure. Once Mr. Ly prevailed in both the District and Superior Courts, Ms. Lafortune appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which denied her appeal on October 14, 2003. Ly v. Lafortune, 2003 Me. 119. The Supreme Court decision in Ly v. Lafortune, supra, finally and conclusively determines that Mr. Ly is the legal titleholder of the property and that Ms. Lafortune’s rights to the property have been extinguished. Thus, Mr. Ly’s Motion to Dismiss is Granted and all claims against him in this action are dismissed.

The Clerk may incorporate this order on the docket by reference.

(

/ Arthdr Brennan

Jastice, Superior Court

Dated: January 29, 2004

Dorothy Lafortune — PL - pro se Harry B. Center, II, Esq. -— Def. City of Biddeford

Craig J. Rancourt, Esq. - Party-in-Interest Rohert M. Ruel

Jens-Peter W. Bergen, Esq. - Party-in~Interest Tim Q. Ly

William $. Kany, Esq. - Party-in-Interest Saco Biddeford Savings Institution 2

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

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-02-036 DOROTHY LAFORTUNE, Plaintiff Vv. ORDER

CITY OF BIDDEFORD, et al.,

Defendants FEB «

Following hearing: 1. Ms. Lafortune’s Motion to Recuse is Denied. 2. Action on Ms. Lafortune’s Motion for Change of Venue is deferred.

3. Ms. Lafortune’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against Mr. Ly is Denied.

4. The City’s Motion to Dismiss will be scheduled by the Clerk for hearing. Mr. Ly’s Motion to Dismiss

Generally, Ms. Lafortune claims that the City failed to follow proper statutory procedure when it took title to her property at 22 Graham Street, Biddeford, for failure to pay real estate taxes. In May, 2002, the City sold this property to Mr. Ly. Thereafter, Ms. Lafortune filed this complaint challenging the validity of both the tax taking and the sale. As the ostensible title owner of this property, Mr. Ly was clearly a necessary party to this case.

While this case was pending, Mr. Ly brought a Forcible Entry and Detainer action in the District Court seeking a determination that he was entitled to possession of

the property. In her response in the District Court, Ms. Lafortune raised the defense of superior title claiming that the City failed to follow the proper statutory procedure. Once Mr. Ly prevailed in both the District and Superior Courts, Ms. Lafortune appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which denied her appeal on October 14, 2003. Ly v. Lafortune, 2003 Me. 119. The Supreme Court decision in Ly v. Lafortune, supra, finally and conclusively determines that Mr. Ly is the legal titleholder of the property and that Ms. Lafortune’s rights to the property have been extinguished. Thus, Mr. Ly’s Motion to Dismiss is Granted and all claims against him in this action are dismissed.

The Clerk may incorporate this order on the docket by reference.

(

/ Arthdr Brennan

Jastice, Superior Court

Dated: January 29, 2004

Dorothy Lafortune — PL - pro se Harry B. Center, II, Esq. -— Def. City of Biddeford

Craig J. Rancourt, Esq. - Party-in-Interest Rohert M. Ruel

Jens-Peter W. Bergen, Esq. - Party-in~Interest Tim Q. Ly

William $. Kany, Esq. - Party-in-Interest Saco Biddeford Savings Institution 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lafortune v. City of Biddeford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lafortune-v-city-of-biddeford-mesuperct-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack