Lily Andrews Family Limited Partnership v. Andrews

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: December 1, 2005
• Docket: YORap-05-025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-05-025

LILY ANDREWS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.,

Plaintiffs

ORDER

MERRILL ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants

BEFORE THE COURT

This case comes before the Court on Appellants the Lily Andrews Family

Partnership's 76D Appeal of a District Court Order granting a stay of a forcible entry

and detainer action.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Merrill and Dennis Andrews Efstathiou were married in 1980. In 1986, the

couple purchased property located at 48 Beach Street, Ogunquit, Maine. A few months

later, at Dennis' request, Merrill and Dennis sold the property to the Aspinquid, Inc., a

business owned by Dennis' family. Merrill claims that Dennis told her that the transfer

of the property was "just on paper" and that they would get the property back. The

couple and their three chldren lived on the property for approximately 20 years until

Merrill and Dennis separated. Merrill continued to live at the property with her

children. On or about July 6, 2004, Merrill filed for divorce. On August 25, 2004,

Appellants served Merrill with a Notice to Quit. The District Court dismissed the

Complaint for failure to comply with thc notice provisions of the eviction statute. On December 16, 2004, Appellants served Merrill with another Notice to Quit and filed an

eviction action. In response, Merrill filed an Answer and a Claim of Title. On February

11, 2005, the Court ordered a short 45-day discovery period. Merrill subsequently filed

a quiet title action in the York Superior Court, which included a claim for fraud against

Dennis and the family business. Merrill also filed a Motion to Stay the forcible entry

and detainer action in the District Court. On April 14, 2005, the District Court granted

the motion staying the forcible entry and detainer action until "the issue of title is

resolved in the Superior Court."

The sole issue is whether the Superior Court can entertain an appeal of an order

to stay that is not the final judgment in the case.

DISCUSSION

"Whei~evera judgment of the District Court is by law reviewable by the Superior

Court, an aggrieved party may appeal from a judgment' of the District Court to the

Superior Court." M.R. Civ. P. 76D. However, all appeals are generally bound by the

final judgment rule, w h c h provides that appeals may only be taken from a final

judgment. Williams ZJ. Willirrrns, 1998 ME 32, 5, 706 A.2d 1038, 1039. This principle

applies to appeals from the District Court to the Superior Cotlrt. State v. Regis Papcr Co.,

432 A.2d 383, 384 (Me. 1981). Specifically, the Law Court has held that an order staying

Corp. v. Town of Harrison, 1998 a case is not a final judgment. Camps Nmfoz~ndlOwato~zna

ME 20, ql8, 705 A.2d 1109,1115; Xaphes v. Mowry, 478 A.2d 299,301 (Me. 1984).

In this case, Appellants are seelung to appeal a District Court order to stay an

action. The Law Court has clearly heid that an order to stay is not a final judgment, and

therefore is not appealable. The entry will be as follows:

1 A judgment is defined as an order trorn which an appeal Iles. M.K. Civ. 1'. 54(a). Appellants appeal is DENIED, and the 13ish-ict C'ourt's Order of Slay affirmed

Case rernal~dedto District Court.

'She clerk may incoryol-ate this order i t 1 the docket by reference.

Dated: December / , 200,5

Gregory J. O r s o , Esq. - PLS M i c h a e l J. D o n l a n , Esq. - DEPS / Justice, duprrior Court /