Orr v. Howey

Maine Superior

Orr v. Howey

DecidedOctober 19, 2005

DocketCUMap-05-036

StatusUnpublished

This text of Orr v. Howey (Orr v. Howey) 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

Orr v. Howey, (Me. Super. Ct. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAhXl, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-05-036 u/ ..I- --[\ \ ,>- ' ~ ! , l ~ \ ~ s 1 ' q

WILLIAM OPC,

Appellant * v. * ORDER * GARY HOWEY,

Appellee * *

--, L.! -5

< .-*.-" j $ J E y a

Tlus case comes before the Court on Plaintiff / Appellant w i l l i d ~ d r ~ -'= @

appeal from the District Court's Judgment on May 18,2005 dismissing the case

with prejudice pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 76D.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 19,1999, William Orr (Orr), a resident of Maine, purchased a

Monaco Diplomat motor home from Lazy Days RV Center, Inc. in Seffner,

Florida. The vehcle was manufactured by Monaco Coach Corporation

(Monaco). In 2000, Monaco determined that the odometers installed in all 1999

Diplomats had an incorrect pulse setting that caused the vehcle to register more

mileage than they actually traveled. Monaco dispatched Defendant / Appellee

Gary Howey (Howey), an employee, to replace the odometer. Howey replaced

the odometer three times in 2000. The actual mileage on the vehicle was

calculated by a rate of error and programmed into the replacement odometer.

Orr made a claim against Monaco pursuant to the Florida Recreational Vehcle

Mediation/ Arbitration program allegng that the actual mileage on the vehcle

after Orr installed the final odometer read 5067.6 miles when it should have read 5047.8 miles. (Pl. Objection to Motion to Dimiss). Following a 13-hour hearing,

the arbitrator found that:

[tlhe sole claim against Monaco Coach Corporation whch is covered by Florida's Recreational Vehicles "Lemon Law" is the claim for the non- conformity of the odometer, the 4thodometer, operated properly AND the difference between the odometer reading and the actual mileage of the motor home is inconsequential.

Furthermore, the arbitrator reasoned that the although the "[alctual

odometer mileage is essential in establishng the true value of an RV, . . . there is

no reasonable, credible or factual basis to conclude that there is a defect or

condition that SUBSTANTIALLY INIPAIRS the use, value or safety of t h s

Monaco Coach."

Orr then petitioned the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and

for Pinellas County, Florida for review of the Arbitrator's decision. Orr

subsequently withdrew that petition. Six months later, on February 12,2005, Orr

filed a small claims Complaint alleging that Howey tampered with the odometer

in violation of 29-A M.R.S.A. 5 2106. After oral argument, the district court judge

held that the decision of the Florida arbitrator had res judicata effect and

dismissed the small claims Complaint. The district court stated that:

[alfter review of Defendant's motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's objection and oral argument, the court grants the motion based on claim preclusion (res judicata). The Plaintiff did present h s odometer claims to a Florida arbitrator in 2000, lost, appealed it, then dropped his appeal. There is nothing new in a legal sense to avoid res judicata. The Defendant is and was an employee of Monaco Coach Corp., the defendant in the arbitration. Plaintiff had an attorney in Florida and had a full opportunity to present h s claims in Florida in 2000.

DISCUSSION

Orr maintains that res judicata does not apply here because the claim

before the arbitrator was based on Florida's "Lemon Law." He argues that the claim he brought before the Maine District court was whether Howey tampered

with h s odometer in violation of 29-A M.R.S.A. 5 2106. Notwithstanding the

different legal theories, Howey argues that the arbitrator's holding that the final

odometer operated properly and did not substantially impair the use, value, or

safety of the Monaco Coach, has res judicata effect on the issue of tampering.

a. Standard of Review

The doctrine of res judicata ensures that the same matter will not be

litigated more than once. Macomber v. MacQui~zn-Tweedie,2003 ME 121, 9 22, 834

A.2d 131, 138. A claim will be precluded if "1) the same parties or their privies

are involved in both actions; 2) a valid final judgment was entered in the prior

action; and 3) the matters presented for decision in the second action were, or

might have been litigated in the first action." Id. "When no factual issues exist in

determining the res judicata effect of an earlier action, the appellate court

reviews the trial court's application of the doctrine for errors of law." Blance v.

Alley, 1997 ME 125, P3,697 A.2d 828. Moreover, appeals from small claims

decisions can only be on questions of law. M.R.S.C.P. ll(d)(l).

It is clear that although Monaco was the defendant in the Florida action,

Howey is a privy of Monaco by the nature of his employment. Preliminarily, this

Court must determine whether the decision of a foreign arbitrator has claim

preclusive effect. As a general rule, arbitration awards have claim preclusive

effect. Restatement of the Law, Second, Judgments 5 84, Reporter's Notes,

Comment b.' Foreign arbitration awards also have claim preclusive effect

-

'See, e.g., Grand Bahama Petroleum Co., Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 550 F.2d 1320 (2d Cir. 1977); United States, for and on Behalf of Portland Constr. Co. v. Weiss Pollution Control Corp., 532 F.2d 1009 (5th Cir. 1976); Behrens v. Skelly, 173 F.2d 715 (3d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. provided that (1)they were enforceable in the state of their rendition, (2) the

cause of action on which they were based was not contrary to the strong public

policy of the forum and (3) the defendant was subject to the judicial jurisdiction

of the arbitration tribunal and was given reasonable notice of the proceeding and

a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Restatement 5 220, Reporter's note^.^

In this case, the Florida Lemon Law requires a motor vehcle

manufacturer or service agent to make repairs that are necessary to conform the

vehicle to its warranty. See 5 681.103, Fla. Stat. (2002). The law also provides for

various arbitration and mediation alternatives to resolve disputes between

consumers and the manufacturers of recreational vehicles. See 5 681.1097, Fla.

Stat. (2002) (Pilot RV Mediation and Arbitration Program). Florida recognizes

that decisions made by arbitrators in t h s program are binding unless appealed

by either party. Coberly v. Thor Industries, 908 So. 2d 486 (Fl. App. 2005); see J€

681.1097(7),Fla. Stat. (2002). Based on the foregoing authority, it is clear that the - -

Arbitrator's decision was enforceable in Florida and not contrary to public

policy. Furthermore, Orr had a reasonable opportunity to be heard based on the

fact that the arbitration hearing continued for 13 hours.

Accordingly, the main issue in this case is whether the matters presented

for decision before the Maine district court were, or might have been litigated

821, 70 S.Ct. 66, 49 L.Ed. 498 (1949); Goldstein v. Doft, 236 F.Supp. 730 (S.D.N.Y.1964),aff'd, 353 F.2d 484

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