McCarthy v. Inhabs. of the Town of Kennebunkport

Maine Superior

McCarthy v. Inhabs. of the Town of Kennebunkport

DecidedJanuary 23, 2004

DocketYORap-03-015

StatusUnpublished

This text of McCarthy v. Inhabs. of the Town of Kennebunkport (McCarthy v. Inhabs. of the Town of Kennebunkport) 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

McCarthy v. Inhabs. of the Town of Kennebunkport, (Me. Super. Ct. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-03-015 , Vre hy THOMAS F. McCARTHY, - . Individually and-as Trustee of the Valeska Family Trust and Valeska Realty Trust, Plaintiff ° . ORDERS ON Vv. PENDING MOTIONS THE INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF KENNEBUNKPORT, GONALAL © tay Lay. sp ee Defendant VAR 36 504

Thomas McCarthy, individually and as trustee of the Valeska Family Trust and the Valeska Realty Trust, has brought a first amended complaint against the Town of Kennebunkport. Following an order on an earlier motion to dismiss, only Counts I, pursuant to Rule 80B, M.R.Civ.P. and IIL, a claim of trespass, remains. The town has filed a motion to dismiss, a motion for partial summary and a motion to strike the plaintiff's affidavit.

The motion to dismiss seeks to dismiss the claims of Mr. McCarthy as trustee as -

the trusts must be represented by a Maine licensed counsel, Mr. McCarthy is not

- licensed in Maine and as Mr. McCarthy cannot represent a separate entity in a pro se

capacity. Trusts, like estates, see State v. Simanonok, 539 A.2d 211, 12-3 (Me. 1988), or corporations are entities separate from the people who administer them. The portion of the complaints brought by Mr. McCarthy, as trustee, must be dismissed. There are no _ statutory exceptions for non-Maine lawyer trustees to represent trusts. See 4 M.R.S.A.

§807. The second motion is a motion for partial summary judgment against Mr. McCarthy individually and as trustee of the Valeska Realty Trust. Since the claim of the Valeska Realty Trust has been dismissed, only the claim of Mr. McCarthy individually will be examined. The town’s motion is granted as Mr. McCarthy has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 56 in that an opposing statement of material facts was not submitted, his affidavit was late and the form of the affidavit was deficient.

The final motion need not be addressed.

The entry is:

Motion to dismiss the claims of Thomas McCarthy as trustee of the

Valeska Family Trust and as Trustee of the Valeska Realty Trust is

granted.

Motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part. Judgment for

the defendant on the claims of Thomas McCarthy individually.

Dated: January 23, 2004

Sat b foe Thomas F. McCarthy - PL - prose Ant FA pee

Sean T. McCarthy, Esq. - PL - pro hac vice PaulA. Fritzsche Melissa A. Hewey, Esq. — DEF Justice, Superior Court

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-03-015 , Vre hy THOMAS F. McCARTHY, - . Individually and-as Trustee of the Valeska Family Trust and Valeska Realty Trust, Plaintiff ° . ORDERS ON Vv. PENDING MOTIONS THE INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF KENNEBUNKPORT, GONALAL © tay Lay. sp ee Defendant VAR 36 504

Thomas McCarthy, individually and as trustee of the Valeska Family Trust and the Valeska Realty Trust, has brought a first amended complaint against the Town of Kennebunkport. Following an order on an earlier motion to dismiss, only Counts I, pursuant to Rule 80B, M.R.Civ.P. and IIL, a claim of trespass, remains. The town has filed a motion to dismiss, a motion for partial summary and a motion to strike the plaintiff's affidavit.

The motion to dismiss seeks to dismiss the claims of Mr. McCarthy as trustee as -

the trusts must be represented by a Maine licensed counsel, Mr. McCarthy is not

- licensed in Maine and as Mr. McCarthy cannot represent a separate entity in a pro se

capacity. Trusts, like estates, see State v. Simanonok, 539 A.2d 211, 12-3 (Me. 1988), or corporations are entities separate from the people who administer them. The portion of the complaints brought by Mr. McCarthy, as trustee, must be dismissed. There are no _ statutory exceptions for non-Maine lawyer trustees to represent trusts. See 4 M.R.S.A.

§807. The second motion is a motion for partial summary judgment against Mr. McCarthy individually and as trustee of the Valeska Realty Trust. Since the claim of the Valeska Realty Trust has been dismissed, only the claim of Mr. McCarthy individually will be examined. The town’s motion is granted as Mr. McCarthy has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 56 in that an opposing statement of material facts was not submitted, his affidavit was late and the form of the affidavit was deficient.

The final motion need not be addressed.

The entry is:

Motion to dismiss the claims of Thomas McCarthy as trustee of the

Valeska Family Trust and as Trustee of the Valeska Realty Trust is

granted.

Motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part. Judgment for

the defendant on the claims of Thomas McCarthy individually.

Dated: January 23, 2004

Sat b foe Thomas F. McCarthy - PL - prose Ant FA pee

Sean T. McCarthy, Esq. - PL - pro hac vice PaulA. Fritzsche Melissa A. Hewey, Esq. — DEF Justice, Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McCarthy v. Inhabs. of the Town of Kennebunkport, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-inhabs-of-the-town-of-kennebunkport-mesuperct-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack