Piacentini v. Bogdanovich

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: November 3, 2011
• Docket: CUMcv-11-166
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKETNO: CV-~-~6 n ,~ d:;C('' ' I ~~~: \l \ Its~ ~~~~ I,; " I I \ '··[ 1' 1

ORDER

Defendant

Plaintiff Chris Piacentini, in his capacity as personal representative, moves

to dismiss defendant Lucy Bogdanovich's third-party complaint alleging unjust

enrichment. 1 "A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the

legal sufficiency of the complaint." New Orleans Tanker Corp. v. DOT, 1999 ME

67,

favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of

action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some'""

legal theory." Moody v. State Liquor & Lottery Comm'n, 2004 ME 20,

43.

Piacentini rests his motion on the statute of limitations under the Probate

Code, which bars "all claims against a decedent's estate which arose before the

death of the decedent ... whether ... founded on contract, tort, or other legal

basis" unless the creditor files the claim within four months of receiving actual

notice. 18-A M.R.S. § 3-803(a) (2010); see also 18-A M.R.S. § 3-801(b) (2010). Here,

it is uncontested that actual notice was provided on March 3, 2010. Therefore, all

1 Bogdanovich originally filed a two-count counterclaim and a two-count third- party claim. She conceded the dismissal of the three counts not discussed here.

1 claims are barred after July 3, 2010, but the third-party complaint was not filed

until June 1, 2011.

; ,:, claim even on events tJlat atose before the def;~dent's de a ·<;

because it is bas~d irt'~quity and this sta~te'dpes not bar equit}{'clai~s; While

-~ --- ,,_'-unjustenrichmel1t is based-in equity, the claim is still-subject to,the limitationsc~t~-

forth in section 3-803(a) of the Probate Code. See A.F.A.B., Inc. v. Town of Old

Orchard Beach, 639 A.2d 103, n.3 (Me. 1994) (noting that unjust enrichment is

based in equity). She relies on the phrase "other legal basis" to exclude equity

claims from the statute, but the term "claims" in the Probate Code includes

"liability of the decedent or protected person whether arising in contract, in tort

or otherwise." 18-A M.R.S. § 1-201(4) (2010). Therefore, "claims" encompasses

claims brought both in equity and in law. Applying this definition to section 3-

803(a), it is clear that equity claims are time-barred after four months, just as legal

claims are barred.

The entry is:

Piacentini's motion to dismiss the counterclaim ancYthird-party complaint ,// If / are grante . d /~/1 1:.1/!~-

DATE: i , f ,1MI,A z1 2-0 t\ m~ ;--P'-"---Y.,--________ v Roland A. Cole Justi~e, Superior Court

2 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV-11-166

¥:, J?laintiff, · v ... •',,

------- ···~~~-~.~,,LUG¥ BOGDAN0VICH,

Plaintiff Chris Piacentini, in his capacity as personal representative, moves

. _ to dismiss defendant Lucy Bogdanovich' s third-pa~mplaint alleging unjust --?.:;~

1 enrichment. "A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the

legal sufficiency of the complaint." New Orleans Tanker Corp. v. DOT, 1999 ME

67, 'li 3, 728 A.2d 673. The court reviews the complaint"in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of

action or alleges facts that would entitle the plainti..; 1c _relief pursuant to some

legal theory." Moody v. State Liquor & Lottery Comm'n, 2004 ME 20, 'li 7, 843 A.2d

Piacentini rests his motion on the statute of li~lations under the Probate

Code, which bars "all claims against a decedent's estate which arose before the

death of the decedent ... whether ... founded on contract, tort, or other legal

basis" unless the creditor files the claim within four months of receiving actual

notice. 18-A M.R.S. § 3-803(a) (2010); see also 18-A M.R.S. § 3-801(b) (2010). Here,

it is uncontested that actual notice was provided on March 3, 2010. Therefore, all

1 Bogdanovich originally filed a two-count counterclaim and a two-count third- party claim. She conceded the dismissal of the three counts not discussed here.

1 claims are barred after July 3, 2010, but the third-party complaint was not filed

until June 1, 2011 .

. _;,;;.A~Jwm even thougi-4it,ts, b.ased on . events th~~ ~rose " -:-~ :~~-~~:-~ '. . ' .. .

·gecause it is based;ir\eqyity and this statu,te 'do~s not bar equity c~rum.s_: While

----~-- ~~---'"unjustenrichment~isbased in-equity, the claim-is . tHe limitations set~~· ---- · --"'-- ""--·"r--·-- ---

forth in section 3-803(a) of the Probate Code. See A.F.A.B., Inc. v. Town of Old

Orchard Beach, 639 A.2d 103, n.3 (Me. 1994) (noting ili~~ust enrichment is -~ --:~iti:::d.-:;~- based in equity). She relies on the phrase "other legal b~~is" to exclude equity

. cl9-ims from the statute, but the term "claims" in the e Code includes "liability of the decedent or protected person whether arising in contract, in tort

or otherwise." 18-A M.R.S. § 1-201(4) (2010). Therefore, "claims" encompasses

claims brought both in equity and in law. Applying this~definition to section 3-

803(a), it is clear that equity claims are time-barred aftehfour months, just as legal

Piacentini's motion to dismiss the counterclaim an ird-party complaint

are granted. .;(,'_-"~ / l.

DATE: Ulll · Rolazyd A. Cole Justite, Superior Court

2 CHRIS PIACENTINI VS LUCY BOGDANOVICH UTN:AOCSsr -2011-0034559 CASE #:PORSC-CV-2011-00166

01 0000008357 ~C~LO~U~T~I~E~R~,~T~E~R~E~S~A~M~------------------------------------ 477 CONGRESS STREET 14TH FLOOR PO BOX 15215 PORTLAND ME 04112-5215 F CHRIS PIACENTINI PL RTND 04/13/2011

02 0000002967 ~F~RA~N~C~O~~MA~R~K~------------------------------------------ THREE CANAL PLAZA PO BOX 4630 PORTLAND ME 04112-4630 F LUCY BOGDANOVICH _D~E~F--------~R-T_N~D--~0_6_/~0_1_/_2_0_1_1