Sargent v. Sargent Jr.

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: November 5, 2014
• Docket: CUMap-14-34
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN I ERED NOV 0 7 2014

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. AP-14-34

DAVID SARGENT, 1VW-Utm- I/-(}5-/Lf- Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ORDER STATEOFC~~~ Cumbertand, S$, l'dll\ s DAVID SARGENT JR., NOV 06 2014 Defendant-Appellant RECEIVED David Sargent Jr. appeals from a May 5, 2014 small claims judgment of the District

Court (Darvin, J.) awarding his father $800 as restitution.

The son contends that the District Court made an error lf law in not finding that a contract

existed and then in not applying the statute of limitations applicable to the sale of goods. He

further argues that if a contract existed, no equitable remedy was available because his father had

a legal remedy and finally that the doctrine of laches should have prevented recovery.

On the issue of whether a contract existed, the court has reviewed the record and

concludes that because the District Court resorted to an equitable remedy, it implicitly found that no contract had been formed. That finding was not clearly erroneous given the conflicts in the

testimony as to the understanding of the parties.

Under those circumstances, the District Court was entitled to consider the equitable remedy of restitution based on unjust enrichment. See Dalton v. Austin, 432 A.2d 774, 778 (Me.

1981) (referring to actions "for restitution on a theory of implied contract or unjust enrichment").

Based on the wording of the May 5, 2014 judgment, the District Court appears to have found that

the elements of an unjust enrichment claim had been met, see A.F.A.B. Inc. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 639 A.2d 103, 104 (Me. 1994), and that finding is not clearly erroneous.

Finally, laches requires a showing ofprejudice, not merely delay. Longley v. Knapp, 1998

ME 142 'lf10, 713 A.2d 939; Fisco v. Department of Human Services, 659 A.2d 274, 275 (Me. 1995). It is not clear that the son raised laches in the District Court but even if laches was raised,

no prejudice was shown.

The entry shall be:

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The clerk is directed to incorporate this

order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a) .

..-- Dated: November 2, 2014

Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

2 CLERK OF COURTS Cumberland County 205 Nt!lwbury Street, Ground Floor · Portland, ME 041 01

DAVID sARGENT SR. App 12.\ lee. 711 PEQUAWKET TRAIL WEST BALDWIN ME 04091

CLERK OF COURTS Cumberland County 205 Newbury Street, Ground Floor Portland, ME 04101

ROBERT WEAVER ESQ A-ppe. \ \u..'l\ 1 ~ A+torn~/ IRWIN TARDY & MORRIS PO BOX 7030 PORTLAND ME 04112-7030