McClure v. Lowell

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedDecember 7, 2020
DocketKENcv-19-232
StatusUnpublished

This text of McClure v. Lowell (McClure v. Lowell) 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
McClure v. Lowell, (Me. Super. Ct. 2020).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, SS. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-2019-232

PETER MCCLURE, DOUGLAS MCCLURE and ANN MCCLURE NOEL, Plaintiffs DECISION AND ORDER V.

KATHLEEN M. LOWELL, Defendant

Before the court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on their complaint for equitable partition (Count I) and declaratory judgment (Count II). The Defendant opposes the motion. Pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(7), the court will rule on the motion without a hearing. Based upon the summary judgment record, the following material facts are undisputed. 1 The three Plaintiffs and the Defendant are siblings who own property as tenants-in-common located at 30 Robbins Lane in Rome, Maine. The property is identified on Map 27, as Lot 45, and is described in a deed dated September 14, 2005 recorded in the Kennebec County Registry of Deeds at Book 8598, Page 0125. Each sibling owns a 25% interest in the property. The parties were gifted the property by their parents. The Plaintiffs no longer wish to own the property with the Defendant because, they contend, irreconci-lable differences have arisen between them in the

'Although the Defendant, in her submissions in opposition to the summary judgment motion, purports to dispute certain facts, she has failed to comply with M.R.Civ.P. 56(h)(2). Accordingly, the statement of facts in support of the summary judgment motion are deemed to be admitted. M.R.Civ.P. 56(h)(4). management, use and possession of the property. The Plaintiffs, however, do desire to continue to own the property together without the Defendant. Physical division of the property is impossible and impractical and would materially injure the rights of the parties. The fair market value of the property, which consists of 2.98 acres of land, a seasonal single-family residence and 3 seasonal one-bedroom cabins, is $551,000. A tenant-in-common has the right to seeks equitable partition of the property pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 6051 et seq. See Ackerman v. Hojnowski, 2002 ME 147, ~ 19,804 A.2d 412; Libby v. Lorraine, 430 A.2d 37, 39-40 (Me. 1981). Moreover, the court is authorized to permit a tenant-in-common to purchase the share of another tenant-in-common. 14 M.R.S. § 6515. In this case, three of the four tenants-in-common wish to purchase the remaining 25% interest of the Defendant. Although the Defendant opposes this plan, the court finds that it is the most fair and equitable alternative available. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that the property located at 30 Robbins Land in Rome, Maine, being Lot 45 on Map 27, and more fully described in a deed dated September 14, 2005 recorded in the Kennebec Registry of Deeds at Book 4598, Page 0125, is equitably partitioned, and it is further ORDERED, that Defendant Kathleen M. Lowell shall convey her 25% interest in the property to Plaintiffs Peter McClure, Douglas McClure and Ann McClure Noel, and said Plaintiffs shall pay to Defendant Kathleen M. Lowell the sum of $137,750 for her 25% interest in the property based upon its appraised value. Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall prepare all necessary conveyance documents.

2 The entry is: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Final judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs Peter McClure, Douglas McClure and Ann McClure Noel against Defendant Kathleen M. Lowell on Count I (Equitable Partition) and Count II (Declaratory Judgment) of their Complaint. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket of this case by notation reference in accordance with M.R.Civ.P. 79

Dated: December 7, 2020

Entered on the docket / :J ( ~ [jj.62J.D I Justice, Superior Court

3 PETER MCCLURE - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT 28 FEDERAL STREET KENNEBEC, ss. NEWBURY MA 01950 Attorney for: PETER MCCLURE ~(~/Z\ Docket No AUGSC-CV-2019-00232

JACQUELINE RIDER - RETAINED VERRIL DANA LLP DOCKET RECORD ONE PORTLAND SQUARE PO BOX 586 PORTLAND ME 04112-0586

Attorney for: PETER MCCLURE KEITH E GLIDDEN - RETAINED VERRILL DANA LLP ONE FEDERAL STREET, 20TH FLOOR BOSTON MA 02108-4407

DOUGLAS MCCLURE - PLAINTIFF 25 NORTH DUTCHER STREET IRVINGTON NY 10533 Attorney for: DOUGLAS MCCLURE JACQUELINE RIDER - RETAINED VERRIL DANA LLP ONE PORTLAND SQUARE PO BOX 586 PORTLAND ME 04112-0586

Attorney for: DOUGLAS MCCLURE KEITH E GLIDDEN - RETAINED VERRILL DANA LLP ONE FEDERAL STREET, 20TH FLOOR BOSTON MA 02108-4407

ANN MCCLURE NOEL - PLAINTIFF 115 MILTON FALL COURT MILTON VT 05468 Attorney for: ANN MCCLURE NOEL JACQUELINE RIDER - RETAINED VERRIL DANA LLP ONE PORTLAND SQUARE PO BOX 586 PORTLAND ME 04112-0586

Attorney for: ANN MCCLURE NOEL KEITH E GLIDDEN - RETAINED VERRILL DANA LLP ONE FEDERAL STREET, 20TH FLOOR BOSTON MA 02108-4407

vs KATHLEEN M LOWELL - DEFENDANT HCO BOX 99 BELGRADE LAKES ME 04918

Filing Document: COMPLAINT Filing Date: 11/14/2019 Page 1 of 4 Printed on: 12/08/2020

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

Related

Ackerman v. Hojnowski
2002 ME 147 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2002)
Libby v. Lorrain
430 A.2d 37 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McClure v. Lowell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclure-v-lowell-mesuperct-2020.