McLaughlin v. Hunt

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT PENOBSCOT, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. C\Z-07-173,,, \ / 'j-' r' ( /, ~ Prj-! 1::"'- J - _ , /1" /J" '/­ .

JAY MCLAUGHLIN, and ELLEN MCLAUGHLIN

Plaintiffs, DECISION AND ORDER v. FILED & ENTERED PATRICKE. HUNT, SUPERIOR r,nIJRT Defendant. MAY 182009

PENOBSCOT COUNTY This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the

defendant, Patrick E. Hunt, Esq., filed on August 14, 2008. Oral argument was held on

March 24,2009.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs, Jay and Ellen McLaughin, purchased a Denharco delimber from

Frank Martins Equipment in December 1997. The delimber subsequently broke and the

McLaughlins communicated with Frank Martins, who in turn communicated with

Denharco regarding the problems with the machine. The McLaughlins attempted to

repair the delimber so as to make it usable and have produced evidence that they did so

with the knowledge and consent of Denharco. The repairs did not permanently remedy

the problems with the machine and the McLaughlins continued to request that Denharco

repair it.

When Denharco failed to repair the broken delimber, the McLaughlins retained

the defendant. The defendant filed a complaint in U.S. District Court seeking relief for

inter alia breach of contract and breach of warranty. Denharco filed a motion for

1 summary judgment in that action and the V.S. District Court granted summary judgment

in favor of Denharco as to the McLaughlins' breach of contract claim. The court held

that the contract was governed by the VCC and that the McLaughlins' "remedy [was]

under the warranty provisions of the VCc." McLaughlin v. Denharco, Inc., 129 F. Supp.

2d 32,37 (D. Me. 2001).1

The case went to trial in July 2001 on the McLaughlins' claims for breach of

warranty. The jury found that Denharco had breached the implied warranty of

merchantability and awarded the McLaughlins $18,187.50. On June 28, 2007, the

McLaughlins filed the complaint in the present action, alleging malpractice by the

defendant for his failure to include a rescission count in the complaint against Denharco.

DISCUSSION

"Summary judgment is appropriate when review of the parties' statements of

material facts and the referenced record evidence indicates no genuine issue of material

fact that is in dispute, and, accordingly, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law." Dyer v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 106, ~ 14, 951 A.2d 821, 825. A

genuine issue of material fact exists when there is sufficient evidence to require the fact-

finder to choose between competing versions of a fact that could affect the outcome of

the case. Id.; Inkel v. Livingston, 2005 ME 42, ~ 4,869 A.2d 745, 747.

The defendant contends in the present motion that the plaintiffs could not have

succeeded with a claim for rescission in their lawsuit against Denharco and that,

therefore, they cannot succeed as a matter of law in this legal malpractice suit. The Court

agrees and the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

I The U.S. District Court's opinion is part of the summary judgment record now before the Court. (Def.'s S.M.F. ~112-13, Ex. J.)

2 The sole breach alleged by the plaintiffs was the defendant's failure to include a

rescission count in the complaint against Denharco. It is clear from the parties statements

of material facts and the evidence cited therein, including the written decision of the U.S.

District Court, that rescission was not available to the McLaughlins.

The V.S. District Court stated, and the parties now agree, that the VCC governed

the purchase of the delimber. The plaintiffs in this case accepted the tendered goods (i.e.,

the delimber); therefore, the remedies available to them were those listed in section 2-714

of the VCc. 11 M.R.S. § 2-714 (2008). The District Court confirmed this in its decision

when it stated that "McLaughlin's remedy is under the warranty provisions of the VCC."

McLaughlin, 129 F. Supp. 2d at 37.

CONCLUSION

There being no genuine issues of material fact remaining, the defendant's motion

for summary judgment is granted.

The entry is:

1. The defendant's motion for summary judgment, filed August 14, 2008, is GRANTED. Judgment for the defendant.

2. This order is incorporated into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Date: May~, 2009

Justice, Superior Court

3 JAY MCLAUGHLIN - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT POBOX 637 PENOBSCOT, 8S. MEDWAY ME 04460 Docket No BANSC-CV-2007-00173 Attorney for: JAY MCLAUGHLIN JED DAVIS - RETAINED 07/10/2007 MITCHELL & DAVIS DOCKET RECORD 86 WINTHROP STREET AUGUSTA ME 04330

ELLEN MCLAUGHLIN - PLAINTIFF POBOX 637 MEDWAY ME 04460 Attorney for: ELLEN MCLAUGHLIN JED DAVIS - RETAINED 07/10/2007 MITCHELL & DAVIS 86 WINTHROP STREET AUGUSTA ME 04330

VB PATRICK E HUNT - DEFENDANT 7 SHERMAN STREET, ISLAND FALLS ME 04747 Attorney for: PATRICK E HUNT JAMES M BOWIE - RETAINED 09/05/2007 THOMPSON & BOWIE THREE CANAL PLAZA PO BOX 4630 PORTLAND ME 04112-4630

Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: OTHER NEGLIGENCE Filing Date: 07/10/2007

Docket Events: 07/11/2007 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 07/10/2007

07/11/2007 Party(s): JAY MCLAUGHLIN ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 07/10/2007