From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dean v. Bragdon

Superior Court of Maine, Kennebec
May 13, 2022
Civil Action CV-2018-195 (Me. Super. May. 13, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action CV-2018-195

05-13-2022

MAYBELLE L. DEAN, Plaintiff v. PETER BRAGDON, Defendant

MAYBELLE DEAN - PLAINTIFF Attorney for: MAYBELLE DEAN ALTON STEVENS - RETAINED 11/13/2018 MARDEN DUBORD BERNIER & STEVENS PA LLP. PETER BRAGDON - DEFENDANT, Attorney for: PETER BRAGDON STEPHEN BOURGET - WITHDRAWN 09/25/2020, Attorney for: PETER BRAGDON BRUCE HEPLER - RETAINED LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE W HEPLER.


MAYBELLE DEAN - PLAINTIFF Attorney for: MAYBELLE DEAN ALTON STEVENS - RETAINED 11/13/2018 MARDEN DUBORD BERNIER & STEVENS PA LLP.

PETER BRAGDON - DEFENDANT, Attorney for: PETER BRAGDON STEPHEN BOURGET - WITHDRAWN 09/25/2020, Attorney for: PETER BRAGDON BRUCE HEPLER - RETAINED LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE W HEPLER.

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

William R. Stokes, Superior Court Justice.

INTRODUCTION

Before the court are several motions in what has become protracted litigation between these parties. By way of background, in Dean v. Bragdon, KEN-CV-2016229 (April 17, 2018) (Stokes, J.) the court found that Ms. Dean was the rightful owner of the property in dispute and that Mr. Bragdon had not met his burden of proving his claim of adverse possession. Mr. Bragdon did not appeal that ruling. It is, therefore, a final judgment.

The file in this action, with the various pending motions, objections and oppositions was brought to the court's attention in late April or early May 2022. The court apologizes to the parties and counsel for the delay in addressing and acting on the pending matters.

In November 2018, Dean commenced this action alleging a claim of "wrongful use of civil proceedings." In a decision and Order dated March 16, 2020, the court denied Dean's motion for summary judgment, concluding that there were genuine issues of material fact on the questions of. whether Mr. Bragdon had "probable cause" to initiate and continue with his adverse possession counterclaim and, whether Mr. Bragdon pursued his adverse possession counterclaim with a primary purpose other than that of procuring its proper adjudication. See RESTATEMENT (2d) of TORTS § 674.

Pending before the court are the following motions:

1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

The Plaintiff opposes this motion. In support of this motion, Mr. Bragdon has submitted an affidavit and has also presented the Affidavit of Stephen Bourget, Esq., his counsel in the underlying action. He contends that there is no genuine issue of material fact that (1) he had probable cause to assert and maintain his adverse possession counterclaim, and (2) his primary purpose in making that claim was not to be malicious and was not otherwise improper. See RESTATEMENT (2d) of Torts § 676, cmt. a ("The purpose for which the proceedings are initiated or continued becomes material only when it is found that they were initiated without probable cause.")

Both parties have filed objections and motions to strike, arguing that each side has failed to comply with the requirements of summary judgment practice in accordance with M.R.Civ.P. 56. Without diving too deeply into the weeds, the court would note that some of those objections may be well-taken. Nevertheless, in reviewing the summary judgment record, the court is satisfied that Ms. Dean has generated a genuine issue of material fact, at least on the issue of probable cause, namely, whether Mr. Bragdon "reasonably believefd] in the existence of facts upon which the [counter]claim [was] based." Similarly, the court concludes that there is a genuine issue of material fact on the question of Mr. Bragdon's primary purpose in pursuing the adverse possession counterclaim. There are issues of fact as to what Mr. Bragdon may have known or not known that precludes the resolution of this action by way of summary judgment. These issues of fact can only be resolved at trial, which the court intends to hold in July, 2022.

2. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Take Depositions and to Extend Deadline for Responding the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

Considering the court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment, it would appear that this motion is moot. In any event, the motion was untimely and is denied.

3. Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions

This motion is denied. The court finds that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is not frivolous.

4. Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Deadline to Oppose Motion for Summary Judgment

Ms. Dean's opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was filed late, as was her request to extend the deadline. Moreover, the opposition and the motion to extend were not served upon Mr. Bragdon's counsel but were sent to his former attorney. The Defendant objects to this motion and urges the court to deny it and strike Ms. Dean's opposition to his summary judgment motion. See # 5 below. The court finds that there was excusable neglect by Ms. Dean's counsel in submitting the late filings. The court further finds that it would not serve the goal of securing a just determination of the action to deny the motion to extend. The motion to extend is granted, nunc pro tunc.

5. Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

This motion is denied.

6. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Reply Memorandum

This motion is denied.

7. Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Sur-Reply Memorandum

This motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

The entry is: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed on June 3, 2021 is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion to Take Depositions and to Extend Deadline filed on June 11, 2021 is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions filed July 1, 2021 is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Deadline filed on July 1, 2021 is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc. Defendant's Motion to strike Plaintiffs Opposition to Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Reply Memorandum filed on August 2, 2021 is DENIED.

Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Sur-Reply Memorandum filed on August 6, 2022 is GRANTED.

The Clerk is requested to reach out to counsel for the parties to schedule this case for a bench trial in July 2022.

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket of this case by notation reference in accordance with M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).


Summaries of

Dean v. Bragdon

Superior Court of Maine, Kennebec
May 13, 2022
Civil Action CV-2018-195 (Me. Super. May. 13, 2022)
Case details for

Dean v. Bragdon

Case Details

Full title:MAYBELLE L. DEAN, Plaintiff v. PETER BRAGDON, Defendant

Court:Superior Court of Maine, Kennebec

Date published: May 13, 2022

Citations

Civil Action CV-2018-195 (Me. Super. May. 13, 2022)