Opinion
Docket No. CUMSC-CV-16-0433
03-22-2017
JOHN F. CHASE Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant v. BRUCE G. CHASE Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff JANET CHASE Counterclaim Plaintiff
STATE OF MAINE Cumberland, ss.
ORDER ON MOTION AND DISCOVERY
This case came before the court for a hearing on the Motion To Join Additional Parties and to Reinstate New Amended Counterclaim filed by Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Bruce Chase and proposed Counterclaim Plaintiff Janet Chase, and also for a discovery conference requested by Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant John Chase. Participating were attorney Smith representing John Chase, and Bruce Chase, representing himself. Janet Chase did not participate.
Initially, the court noted that the copy of the promissory note attached to John Chase's complaint against Bruce Chase does not contain a provision permitting acceleration upon breach or default, raising doubt as to whether John Chase would be entitled to judgment for the entire amount of the note, even if he prevails on the merits of his claim for breach of contract. See Hills v. Gardiner Savings Institution, 309 A.2d 877, 882-83 (Me. 1973).
Moreover, because the note recites that payment is due only upon the death of Bruce Chase, there may be a question as to whether there is any cause of action. See id. at 883 ("[N]o cause of action exists for an installment payment until such installment is due"). --------
Motion To Join Additional Parties and to Reinstate New Amended Counterclaim
Initially the pending Motion To Join Additional Parties and to Reinstate New Amended Counterclaim was discussed. Plaintiff has objected, mainly because the Motion purports to join two corporate entities, identified as Chase Custom Homes & Finance and Auto Shine Car Wash, as counterclaim defendants, but the proposed Amended Counterclaim does not appear to state any actual claim against either. During the discussion, Bruce Chase confirmed thst he and Janet Chase contend that John Chase has breached various promises and commitments to them, and that they are not contending that either of the corporate entities is liable to them. Bruce Chase said the two entities were named because John Chase used them to make certain payments to Bruce and/or Janet Chase. Based on that clarification, the court is granting the Motion to the extent of permitting Bruce and Janet Chase to assert the Amended Counterclaim against John Chase only. The Motion is denied to the extent it purports to add the two corporate entities as counterclaim defendants.
Discovery
John Chase has propounded interrogatories and document requests to Bruce Chase, which have not yet been responded to. After discussion, it was agreed that John Chase will withdraw the pending discovery and will submit a new set of interrogatories and document requests to both Bruce and Janet Chase, for both to answer to the best of their ability. The new discovery will likely be similar, but not necessarily identical, to what was already requested. Bruce and Janet Chase will have 21 days from when they receive the new discovery to respond to the document request and to submit answers under oath to the interrogatories.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The Motion of Bruce and Janet Chase To Join Additional Parties and to Reinstate New Amended Counterclaim is granted in part as stated above and is otherwise denied.
(2) Discovery to proceed as indicated above.
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this Order by reference in the docket. Dated March 22, 2017
/s/_________
A. M. Horton, Justice
BRUCE CHASE
JANET CHASE
156 REGAN LANE
PORTLAND, ME 04103
TYLER SMITH, ESQ
GENE LIBBY, ESQ
LIBBY O'BRIEN KINGSLEY & CHAMPION
62 PORTLAND RD, STE 17
KENNEBUNK, ME 04043