Pendexter v. Almechatt
This text of Pendexter v. Almechatt (Pendexter v. Almechatt) 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.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT OXFORD, ss. , CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO, CV-23-42
KASEY PENDEXTER,
Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO DISSOLVE LIEN
YOUNESS MICHAEL ALMECHATT,
meee nee” Smee” See” eae Ne et” me ee”
Defendant.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Kasey Pendexter’s Motion for an Expedited Order Dissolving Defendant’s Notice of Lien and Notice of Claim of Title. The Plaintiff asks the Court to dissolve two liens, both recorded by Defendant Youness Michael Almechatt: a Notice of Lien, recorded in the Oxford County Registry of Deeds in Book 5769, Page 822, and a Notice of Claim of Title, recorded in the Oxford County Registry of Deeds in Book 5742, Page 455. The Plaintiff contends that the liens are baseless and create a cloud on her title to the property, reducing its value and marketability at a time when she is attempting to sell the property. Because the Court lacks the authority to grant the Plaintiffs request at this time, the motion is denied.
The Plaintiff cites two cases for the proposition that the Court has the authority to dissolve the liens recorded by the Defendant: Laprel vy. Going, 2014 ME 84, 96 A.3d 67 and Lucky 777, LLC v. Nature’s Resolution LLC, No. CV-20-83, 2020 WL 10316698 (Me. Super. Ct. Nov. 12, 2020). In Laprel, the Law Court affirmed a decision of the Superior Court (York County, Kennedy, J) declaring the defendant’s liens invalid. 2014 ME 84, 4 10, 96 A.3d 67. That decision was made on partial summary judgment of the plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim. /d. In Lucky 777, the
Superior Court (Androscoggin County, McKeon, J.) denied a defendant’s motion to reconsider its
earlier grant of the plaintiffs motion to discharge a mechanic’s lien. 2020 WL 10316698 at *1. That decision was made after a hearing in which both parties presented evidence. /d.
Here, unlike Laprel and Lucky 777, the Plaintiff has not supplied the Court with admissible evidence! upon which to base a decision as to the liens recorded by the Defendant. Instead, the Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of a District Court order entered in her favor in an action for forcible entry and detainer (“FED”) which she pursued against the Defendant in 2023. She argues that the order is proof that the Defendant has no title to the property. Where the purpose of an FED action is not to quiet title, but rather to decide which party is entitled to “immediate possession” of a property, this is not an appropriate use of judicial notice. Tozier v. Tozier, 437 A.2d 645, 647 (Me. 1981); see also Carney v. Bergeron, 518 A.2d 717, 719 (Me. 1986) (‘Although the issue of title may be adjudicated in a FED action, it is only for the purpose of determining the tight to immediate possession between the parties.”). Accordingly, the Court must deny the Plaintiffs motion.
The Court accordingly orders as follows:
Plaintiff Kasey Pendexter’s Motion for an Expedited Order Dissolving Defendant’s Notice of Lien and Notice of Claim of Title is DENIED.
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is directed to enter this Order on Plaintiff's
Motion to Dissolve Lien on the civil docket by a notation incorporating it by reference.
Date: January 10, 2024 OK CR
[ nnifer A. Archer Justice, Maine Superior Court
' Although the Plaintiff has filed with the Court a number of exhibits, including what appears to be a copy of the deed, these exhibits are attached to an unverified complaint and are not otherwise authenticated by an affidavit.
KASEY PENDEXTER - PLAINTIFF SUPERTOR COURT
41 HIGHLAND ST OXFORD, ss. AUBURN MA 01502 Docket No SOPSC-CV-2023-00042 Att y for: KASEY PENDEXTER
scrcttnenciieentttn eee
ENGLERT - RETAINED
BERNSTEIN SHUR SAWYER & NELSON DOCKET RECORD PO BOX 9729
100 MIDDLE STREET
PORTLAND MB 04104-5029
Attorney for: KASEY PENDEXTER
JAMES MCCARTNEY - RETAINED
J. WILLLIAM MCCARTNEY ATTORNEY AT LAW PO BOX 604
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
V5
YOUNESS MICHABL ALMECHATT - DEFENDANT PO BOX 31
PORTER ME 04068
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Filing Date: 08/25/2023
Docket Events: 08/28/2023 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 08/25/2023
08/29/2023 Party(s): KASEY PENDEXTER ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 08/25/2023
Plaintiff's Attorney: EVIANA ENGLERT
08/29/2023 Party(s}: YOUNESS MICHAEL ALMECHATT RESPONSIVE PLEADING - RESPONSE FILED ON 08/25/2023
09/07/2023 ORDER - SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED ON 09/07/2023 JAMES MARTEMUCCI , JUSTICE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES {COUNSEL
09/07/2023 DISCOVERY FILING - DISCOVERY DEADLINE ENTERED ON 05/07/2024
09/18/2023 HEARING - MOTION PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SCHEDULED FOR 11/06/2023 at 11:15 a.m.
09/18/2023 HEARING - MOTION PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOTICE SENT oN 09/18/2023
09/18/2023 Party(s): YOUNESS MICHAEL ALMECHATT SUMMONS /SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 08/28/2023
09/18/2023 Party(s): YOUNESS MICHAEL ALMECHATT Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 01/16/2024
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pendexter v. Almechatt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendexter-v-almechatt-mesuperct-2024.