Osborn v. Sullivan

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedMay 5, 2005
DocketCUMre-05-004
StatusUnpublished

This text of Osborn v. Sullivan (Osborn v. Sullivan) 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
Osborn v. Sullivan, (Me. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF MAINE STATE OF Maus Cumberland, SS SUMBERL AND Se Civil Action \y VLERNCS OFFISE Docket No. RE-05-00 AIS HAY -5 D2 39 bet pe fh ae

ERNEST OSBORN d/b/a YANKEF DEVELOPMENT CORP.,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim

Defendant

DECISION AND ORDER ON Vv. MOTION FOR ATTACHMENT . Sey

PHILIP SULLIVAN and CHERYL f SULLIVAN,

Defendants and Counterclaim

Plaintiffs JUL 25

I, STATUS OF CASE cm This case is before the court on a Motion for Attachment by Paul and Cheryl Sullivan on their counterclaim against plaintiff? The court has reviewed the pleadings and submissions and heard counsel at oral argument. Ir, BACKGROUND Ernest Osborn, entered into a contract during the spring of 2003 with Philip and Cheryl Sullivan to build a cottage for the defendants on Frye Island. Plaintiff claims that he performed 98% of the work and furnished all the necessary materials on or before September 15, 2004, and that the defendants still owe him $30, 927.62. The Sullivans barred plaintiff from the construction site by a letter dated September 29, 2004 because the house was not finished. The defendants filed a counterclaim against Osborn alleging: (I) breach of

contract; (II) breach of the Maine Flome Construction Contracts Act, 10 M.R.S.A. § 1486,

et seq.; (ILL) fraud; and (IV) negligence. According to the defendants the cottage was not

’ The Sullivans also filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint that has been withdrawn by counsel in light of the amended complaint filed by Osborn.

Ae

done by the contractually specified deadlines, they had to hire another contractor, and

they had to pay the sub-contractors that Osborn did not; in effect paying twice for some

The Sullivans claim that fixing all the things Osborne did not do will result in an additional cost of $39,781. Additionally, the Sullivans claim lost rental income in the amount of $15,000. The defendants filed a motion for attachment in the amount of $57,000.

The parties disagree as to how much money will be required to complete the contract. The Sullivans claim it will be more than $39,000 and have found a contractor who will do it for approximately $46,000.

Osborne claims that the remaining work can done for approximately $6,000 ° and that he also completed work that was not included in the contract. He also alleges that it was the Sullivans who first breached the contract in the fall of 2003 when only one- third of the contractually scheduled payment was paid to Osborn. Osborn also claims that if the Sullivans did not breach the contract in 2003, then the contract was definitely breached when the Sullivans kicked him off the worksite in September 2004, well after the agreed-to date of completion. Osborn also disputes the claim for lost rental income as he was told this was only going to be a family vacation home * and that loss of rental

income is not a foreseeable damage item.

Ili. DISCUSSION

A party seeking an attachment must demonstrate that it will "more likely than not ,

* See affidavit of Anthony Torra dated April 19, 2005.

° Affidavit of Ernest C. Osborn dated April 4, 2005, exhibit A attached.

* Affidavit of Ernest C. Osborn dated April 4, 2005, ¢ 8.

'

. . recover judgment, including interest and costs, in an amount equal to or greater than

the aggregate sum of the attachment and any liability i insurance” available. M.R.Civ.P.

-4A(0). Under this standard, the “moving party must show a a ‘greater than 50% chance of prevailing." MR.CivP. 4A, Advisory Committee's Note, Feb. 15, 1992, amendment. The court must find that the moving party will succeed by a preponderance of the evidence. Jacques v. Brown, 609 A.2d 290, 292, n.3 (Me 1992), see also Wilson v. DelPapa, 634 A.2d 1252, 1254 (Me. 1993) (trial court assigns weight to evidence in affidavits to determine plaintiff's likelihood of success). M.R.Civ.P. 4A(c) requires that parties seeking an attachment show not only that they are reasonably likely to recover a judgment from the defendant, but also that they are reasonably likely to recover a judgment in an amount at least equaling the amount of the requested attachment. Jacques, 609 A.2d at 292, n.3. See Atlantic Heating Co., Inc. v. Lavin, 572 A.2d 478, 479 (Me. 1990) (affidavits lacking specific facts are inadequate to support attachment).

The court has examined the record and affidavits and finds, at best, that the evidence is in balance. Itis not clear that the defendants / counterclaim plaintiffs are more likely than not to succeed on the merits.

IV. ORDER The clerk will make the following entry as the Decision and Order of the court: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is withdrawn, no Order is required. 2. Counterclaim plaintiffs’ Motion for Attachrnent is denied. SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2005 ee

ERNEST CSBORNE D/B/A YANKEE DEVELOPMENT CORP - PLAINTIFF SUPERICR COURT

CUMBERLAND, ss. Attorney for: ERNEST OSBORNE D/B/A YANKEE DEVELOPMENT Docket No PORSC-RE-2005-00004 CORPENCE SAWYER - RETAINED 01/11/2005 SAWYER SAWYER & MINOTT PA PO BOX 1177 DOCKET RECORD

WINDHAM ME 04062

VS PHILIP G SULLIVAN - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: PHILIP G SULLIVAN DEBORAH MANN - RETAINED 02/09/2005 JENSEN BAIRD ET AL

10 FREE STREET

PO BOX 4510

PORTLAND ME 04112

Attorney for: PHILIP G SULLIVAN

MARCIA G CORRADINI - RETAINED 02/09/2005 JENSEN BAIRD ET AL

CHERYL A SULLIVAN - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: CHERYL A SULLIVAN DEBORAH MANN - RETAINED 02/09/2005 JENSEN BAIRD ET AL

Attorney for: CHERYL A SULLIVAN

PO BOX 45190

Filing Document: COMPLAINT Filing Date: 01/11/2005

Minor Case Type: MECHANICS LIENS

Docket Events: 01/11/2005 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 01/11/2005 SUMMARY SHEET FILED ON MARCH 11, 2005. AD

01/11/2005 Party(s): ERNEST OSBORNE D/B/A YANKEE DEVELOPMENT CORP ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 01/11/2005 Plaintiff's Attorney: LAWRENCE SAWYER

01/12/2005 CERTIFY/NOTIFICATION - CLERK CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 01/12/2005 COPY FILED Page 1 of 4

Printed on:

05/05/2005

PORSC-RE-2005-00004 DOCKET RECORD

02/07/2005 Party(s): ERNEST OSBORNE D/B/A YANKEE DEVELOPMENT CORP SUMMONS/SERVICE - PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ON 02/07/2005

02/07/2005 Party(s): ERNEST OSBORNE D/B/A YANKEE DEVELOPMENT CORP SUMMONS/SERVICE - PROOF OF SERVICE SERVED ON 01/25/2005 UPON CHERYL A, SULLIVAN BY DELIVERING TO PHILIP SULLIVAN, HUSBAND AT 200 RED CEDAR STE 203 BLUFFTON SC 29910. (LJ)

02/07/2005 Party(s): ERNEST CSBORNE D/B/A YANKEE DEVELOPMENT CORP SUMMONS/SERVICE - PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ON 02/07/2005

02/07/2005 Party(s): ERNEST OSBORNE D/B/A YANKEE DEVELOPMENT CORP SUMMONS /SERVICE ~ PROOF OF SERVICE SERVED ON 01/25/2005 UPON PHILIP G SULLIVAN AT 200 RED CEDAR STE 203 BLUFFTON SC 29910. (LJ)

02/09/2005 Party(s): PHILIP G SULLIVAN,CHERYL A SULLIVAN MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS FILED ON 02/09/2005 OF DEFENDANT'S WITH PROPOSED ORDER . GM

02/09/2005 Party(s): PHILIP G SULLIVAN ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/09/2005 Defendant's Attorney: DEBORAH MANN

Party(s}: CHERYL A SULLIVAN ATTORNEY -~ RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/09/2005 Defendant's Attorney: DEBORAH MANN

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

Related

ATLANTIC HEATING COMPANY, INC. v. Lavin
572 A.2d 478 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1990)
Wilson v. DelPapa
634 A.2d 1252 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1993)
Jacques v. Brown
609 A.2d 290 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Osborn v. Sullivan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborn-v-sullivan-mesuperct-2005.