Mower v. Reed

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: April 8, 2002
• Docket: ANDcv-00-188
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

>, GARE ONAL LIBRARY STATE OF MAINE (BPR 17 enue SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN; ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-00-188 aes Cm et “4 / oO ERMA MOWER and DWIGHT MOWER, Plaintiff, * RECEIVED & FILED Vv. ORDER APR O8 2002 GARY REED and GREGORY REED, ANDROSCOGGIN SUPERIOR COURT

Defendant. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The following findings of fact are based upon the parties’ statements of material facts: On October 4, 2000, Erma and Thomas Mower initiated this suit by filing a complaint in the Androscoggin County Superior Court. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that, on December 17, 1995, Erma Mower slipped and fell on the icy exterior porch of a house located on Todd Road in Greene, Maine that was owned by Wallace Reed, Dell Reed, Gary Reed, and Gregory Reed. In their complaint, the Mowers alleged that the defendants had been negligent in failing to keep the entrance to the property free of ice, snow and other hazards.

Dell Reed was Erma Mower’s sister-in-law, Wallace was Dell Reed’s husband, and Gary and Gregory were Mr. and Mrs. Reed’s children. In 1988, the elder Reeds had deeded the property to their sons, while reserving a life estate for themselves. At the time of the fall, Dell and Wallace Reed were the occupants of the property on Todd Road. Mr. Reed died on May 5, 1999, Mrs. Reed died on October 3, 2000.

Gary and Gregory Reed were each served with copies of the Complaint in December 2000. Neither Dell nor Wallace Reed was ever served, and neither they

nor their estates are parties to this action. On November 27, 2001, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging that, as a matter of law, they had no liability for the property at the time

Mrs. Mower fell. The motion was argued on April 3, 2002.

DISCUSSION Motions for summary judgment have been addressed by the Law Court on

many occasions:

In reviewing a summary judgment, we examine the evidence in

the light most favorable to the nonprevailing party to determine

whether the record supports the conclusion that there is no genuine

issue of material fact and that the prevailing party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law. (citation omitted) In testing the propriety

of a summary judgment, we accept as true the uncontroverted facts

properly appearing in the record. (citation omitted) Champagne v. Mid-Maine Med. Ctr., 1998 ME 87, 4 5, 711 A.2d 842, 844. The issue is not whether there are any disputes of fact, but whether any of the disputes involve a “genuine” issue of “material” fact. See Rule 56(c). After reviewing the record provided, with these standards in mind, the court must conclude that there are no genuine issues of disputed fact.

The court is satisfied that the plaintiffs cannot establish that the defendants were “possessors” of the property in Greene. Erickson v. Brennan, 513 A.2d 288 (Me. 1986). There is no evidence to support a finding that the defendants occupied, possessed, or exercised control over the property. The small projects of repair

and/or maintenance done by the defendants for their parents cannot, as a matter of

law, give rise to a duty to maintain the property in any way. Given the circumstances of this case, the court finds that there are no material

issues of disputed fact and that, as a matter of law, defendants are entitled to

judgment on the plaintiffs’ complaint.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

The clerk is instructed to incorporate this order by reference in the

docket for this case.

DATED: Apel 6 Joo

Justice, Maine Syperior Court Date Filed

10-04-00 Androscoggin Docket No. _ CV-00-188

County

Action __ PERSONAL INJURY

DWIGHT (Amended 10-18-00)

ERMA and THOMAS MOW WALLAGE-REED (Amended 10-18-00)

Greene, Maine ‘DELL REED GARY REED GREGORY REED VS. Greene, Maine Plaintiff’s Attorney Defendant’s Attorney Susan E. Oram, Esq. Paul S. Douglass, Esq. (Gary Reed) BONNEAU & GEISMAR PEATZ-&-THOMPSONS-PlAz (Gregory Reed) (1-3-0 P.O. Box 7230 P707-Box- 960 Lewiston, ME 04243-7230 Lewistonz-Mz~— 04243=0966

471 Main St., P.O. Box 1346 (3-3-01) Lewiston, ME. 04243-1346

Date of Entry

Oct 12 Received 10-04-00: Summary Sheet filed. Complaint filed. ($120.00 filing fee paid receipt #32 on 10-04-00)

" " On 10-12-00: Case file notice mailed.

Oct. 19: Received 10-18-00. Amended Complaint, filed.

Dec. 14: Received 12-13-00. Summons filed showing officer's return of service on 12-9-00 upon Defendant Gary Reed.

Dec 29 Received 12-26-00: Answer of Defendant Gary Reed filed. Paul S. Douglass; Esq. appears on behalf of Defendant Gary Reed.

oN Defendant's Notification of Discovery Service filed. Interrogatories Propounded to Plaintiff Erma Mower by Defendant Gary Reed; Defendant Gary Reed's First Request for Production of Documents from Plaintiff Erma Mower served upon Susan Oram, Esq. on December 22, 2000.

Dec 29 Received 12-27-00: Summons filed showing officer's return of service on 12-20-00 upon Defendant Gregory Reed through Judy Reed.

Jan. 4: Received 1-3-01. Answer of Defendant Gregory Reed, filed. Paul S. Douglass, Esq. appears for Defendant Gregory Reed.

Jan. 16: Received 1-16-01.

Defendants’ Notification of Discovery Service, filed. Defendants’ Request for Admissions from Plaintiff Erma Mower served on Susan Oram, Esq. on January 12, 2001.