Stanton v. Black

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: January 22, 2013
• Docket: CUMre-11-563
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. RE-11-563 i

TAL STANTON, tJ) vJ --c u~~y~,/ :J.;:.

Plaintiff

v. ORDER

HOLLY L. BLACK, et al, STATE OF MAINE Cumberland s:,, Clerk's Office Defendants JAN 22 2013

RECEIVED In response to the court's November 30, 2012 order the parties have submitted

memoranda of law and defendants have submitted a proposed judgment. The court has

considered the arguments of the parties and plaintiff Tal Stanton's objections to the

proposed judgment submitted by defendants Holly Black and Jeffrey Martin.

1. Interim Costs

The court is persuaded that under Rinehart v. Schubel, 2002 ME 53 Cj[ 11, 994 A.2d

73, Stanton shall be responsible for real estate taxes so long as he continues in exclusive

possession of the property. Stanton argues that he is entitled to credit for any

improvements he has made while in possession, but as noted in the November 30, 2012

order, the court did not find that anything Stanton has done while in possession of the

property has resulted in any increase in the value of the property. Indeed, his continued

presence on the property, his potential reluctance to leave, and some of the actions he

has taken with respect to the property may, as Black and Martir'l argue, detract from the

value of the property and make it difficult to sell. If Stanton does not pay all real estate taxes owed for the period since the

commencement of the lawsuit until he quits the property, the amount owed shall be

subtracted from his share of the proceeds of the sale .

. 2. Attorney's Fees and Costs

The court does not find that Stanton's actions and the manner in which he

conducted this litigation, both before and after his counsel withdrew and left him tore

present himself, were sufficiently egregious to justify the award of attorneys fees under

the American Rule. See, ~ Baker v. Manter, 2001 ME 26 CJICJI 13-16, 765 A.2d 583.

Under the circumstances the court also does not find defendants Black and Martin are

entitled to attorneys fees as a Rule 11 sanction for Stanton's motion to dismiss and to

allow intervention dated October 26, 2012. 1

Finally, a Rule 68 offer of judgment may entitle a party to costs but does not

entitle a party to attorneys fees. As prevailing parties, Black and Martin are already

entitled to costs under Rule 54(d). Those costs may be deducted from the sale proceeds

payable to Stanton if he has not paid those costs by the time of sale.

3. Terms of Sale and Removal from Property

The court agrees with Black and Martin that a mechanism for the sale of the

property should be set forth by court order but, having considered Stanton's objections

to the mechanism proposed by Black and Martin, will not adopt the mechanism

proposed by Black and Martin in its entirety.

1 If, as Black and Martin fear, Stanton hereafter improperly attempts to prevent a sale, attorneys fees may be available under Rule 11 (for pleadings interposed solely for purposes of delay) or under the applicable provisions of Rule 66(d)(3)(C) (contempt sanctions for failure to comply with court orders).

2 The accompanying judgment is based on the principle that Stanton is entitled to

be consulted with respect to the sale but is not entitled to block a sale that is agreed to

by persons representing a majority of the ownership interests. See accompanying

judgment.

The entry shall be:

Plaintiff shall be responsible for real estate taxes so long as he remains in exclusive possession. Defendants' application for attorneys fees denied. Accompanying final judgment to be entered. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).

Dated: January 2-"L , 2013

Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court