Opinion
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-16-292
03-03-2017
LESLIE FISSMER, Individually and as Trustee of the LESLIE S. FISSMER REVOCABLE TRUST, PATRICIA and REED GRAMSE, KAREN and WILLIAM BURKE, and ROBERT SIEGEL, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID D. SMITH and CUNNER LANE, LLC, Defendants.
Plaintiffs-Kelly McDonald, Esq. Defendants-Alan Atkins, Esq & Aaron Mosher, Esq.
STATE OF MAINE
CUMBERLAND, ss. Plaintiffs-Kelly McDonald, Esq.
Defendants-Alan Atkins, Esq &
Aaron Mosher, Esq.
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
I. Background
This case involves a dispute over the location of a deeded right of way—Gunner Lane—and the boundary lines of neighboring properties in Cape Elizabeth, Maine. Plaintiffs Leslie Fissmer, individually and as trustee of the Leslie S. Fissmer Revocable Trust; Patricia and Reed Gramse; Karen and William Burke; and Robert Siegel bring this action against defendants David Smith and Cunner Lane, LLC seeking a series of declaratory judgments and other remedies that would preserve the location of Cunner Lane as it currently exists.
a. Procedural History
On August 19, 2016, plaintiff Fissmer filed a verified complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). The court granted the motion and issued a TRO effective until the final resolution of this case. Defendants did not file a response to the complaint, but did move to modify the TRO. On September 9, 2016, the court granted the modification to allow installation of a water line on defendants' properties. Prior to the modification, defendant Smith, in the presence of his counsel, removed a wooden post on the subject property in violation of the TRO. In response, plaintiff sought contempt proceedings for remedial sanctions. On October 4, 2016, the court found defendants in contempt and issued sanctions.
On November 7, 2016, Plaintiff Fissmer filed an amended complaint, which added as plaintiffs the owners of three other properties that are accessible only via Cunner Lane. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) arguing plaintiffs failed to join all necessary parties, including the fee owner of the right of way and the owners of other lots benefitted by the right of way. Plaintiffs object to the motion arguing defendants failed to demonstrate that there are third parties with an interest in the litigation; to the extent that any third parties do exist, they are not necessary parties; and if third parties are necessary, the proper remedy is joinder, not dismissal of the action.
b. Facts
Plaintiff Fissmer owns real property situated at 20 Cunner Lane in the Town of Cape Elizabeth, Maine. Plaintiffs Patricia and Reed Gramse own the property located at 12 Cunner Lane. Plaintiffs Karen and William Burke and Robert Siegel own lots on Brooke Road, which are only accessible by way of Cunner Lane. Defendants own the properties located at 19 and 21 Cunner Lane. Parties' properties are all benefitted by a deeded right of way over Cunner Lane. Defendants assert the Harry E. Baker Company owns in fee the land burdened by the Cunner Lane easement.
Cunner Lane has been in its present location since the 1920s. Defendants acquired their property in 1998 and shortly thereafter defendant Smith paid to have Cunner Lane paved. This dispute arose when defendants hired a company to survey their properties. The survey found the current physical location of Cunner Lane is not the location of the deeded easement. Defendants argue the survey proves the paved road is on their properties, while the deeded easement runs across property plaintiff Fissmer asserts is part of her lot.
Defendants wish to relocate a stone wall built on their properties to the boundary between their lots and the deeded easement as shown on the survey map. The wall would block the paved lane and access to plaintiffs' properties. Shortly before the initial complaint was filed, defendant Smith began drilling holes in the road and installing cones that blocked Cunner Lane. He also represented to plaintiff Fissmer that his contractors were going to remove stones, vegetation, and earth from land she believes to be her lawn, but the survey shows as part of defendants' properties.
For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is denied in part. The owners/possessors of any servient estates or properties abutting Cunner Lane and any unnamed lot owners/possessors with a right of way over Cunner Lane must be joined in this action as necessary parties.
II. Discussion
a. Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7)
A party may move to dismiss an action for "failure to join a party under Rule 19." M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7); Sanseverino v. Gregor, 2011 ME 8, ¶ 8, 10 A.3d 735. "The joinder standard prescribed in Rule 19(a)(1) 'is designated to protect those who already are parties by requiring the presence of all persons who have an interest in the litigation so that any relief that may be awarded will effectively and completely adjudicate the dispute.'" Efstathiou v. Payeur, 456 A.2d 891, 893 (Me. 1983) (quoting 7 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1604, at 36 (1972)). Joinder is the appropriate remedy, not dismissal, when a necessary party has not been joined in an action and is subject to service of process. Id.; Nemon v. Summit Floors, Inc., 520 A.2d 1310, 1313 (Me. 1987); Caron v. Auburn, 567 A.2d 66, 68 (Me. 1989); Larrabee v. Town of Knox, 2000 ME 15, ¶ 11, 744 A.2d 544. "Only when joinder is not possible may the court determine that the action cannot proceed in the absence of a party deemed 'indispensable.'" Caron, 567 A.2d at 68 (quoting M.R. Civ. P. 19(b)).
The court may sua sponte "take notice of the absence of a necessary party . . . ." Ocwen Fed. Bank v. Gile, 2001 ME 120, ¶ 16, 777 A.2d 275. Thus, the court does not address plaintiffs' argument that defendants have not proven the existence of necessary third parties. To the extent they are identified through due diligence, they must be joined in accordance with the terms of this order.
b. Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 19
A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.M.R. Civ. P. 19(a). The Law Court has addressed a number of cases disputing whether third parties with varying property interests were necessary parties pursuant to Rule 19(a). In Avaunt v. Town of Gray, the Court held abutting landowners were not necessary parties when the case concerned whether the road used to access the properties was private or public because the unnamed abutters "right to use the road (either as a public road or a private road with a public easement)" was not affected by the declaratory judgment. 634 A.2d 1258, 1261 (Me. 1993).
In Muther v. Broad Cove Shore Ass'n, the parties disputed the scope of rights the defendant Association members had in an easement that crossed the plaintiffs' property. 2009 ME 37, ¶ 9, 968 A.2d 539. The Court held that unnamed individuals with easement rights not derived from Association membership were not necessary parties because the settlement agreement reached was only binding on the named parties and did not prevent the unnamed individuals from enforcing their separate rights. Id.
In Sanseverino v. Gregor, the Court held that unnamed owners of other lots in a development were not necessary parties, even though they were all subject to the same restrictive covenant challenged in the action. 2011 ME 8, ¶ 8, 10 A.3d 735. The court reasoned as follows:
Failure to join other lot owners in the development did not prevent the parties "from fully adjudicating the underlying dispute," did not expose the parties "to multiple or inconsistent obligations," and did not prejudice the interests of the absent lot owners . . . . The court specifically limited its findings and its judgment to the current commercial or business activities on the Trust's lots, and the court's judgment does not impede the ability of unnamed parties to enforce their rights in the future.Id. (quoting Muther, 2009 ME 37, ¶ 9, 968 A.2d 539) (internal citations omitted).
Efstathiou v. Payeur involved a dispute between neighbors over the location of property lines and whether, given those boundaries, the plaintiff had access to a cul-de-sac. 456 A.2d 891 (Me. 1983). The cul-de-sac had been dedicated to, and accepted by, the Town of Ogunquit. Id. at 891. The Court held the Town was a necessary party because absent joinder it would be "free to relitigate the way's boundaries" and because it had "a clear interest in participating in any suit purporting to effect the boundaries of its public ways." Id. at 893.
As in Efstathiou, this case involves a dispute over the location of property lines and the means of access to parties' properties. Plaintiffs request that the court "declare the Location of Cunner Lane" and "permanently enjoin defendants from blocking Cunner Lane." The demand for judgment does not limit the request for declaration of the location of the road to just the portion between plaintiff Fissmer and defendants' properties. The court cannot fully adjudicate this action absent the owners/possessors of lots burdened or bounded by the right of way because those owners would not be bound by the court's decision and could seek to relitigate the boundaries. The owners/possessors also have an interest in this suit as it seeks to declare the boundaries of Cunner Lane, which would impact the boundaries of their properties. Therefore, they are necessary under both the Rule 19(a)(1) and (2) joinder standards.
Owners or possessors of properties with a deeded easement granting a right of way in Cunner Lane are also necessary parties pursuant to both Rule 19 standards. The amended complaint alleges the right of way provides the only means of access to lots owned by unnamed parties. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) This case is distinguishable from Avaunt because its resolution could impact the dominant estate owners/possessors' ability to use the easement to access their properties. M.R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2)(i); See Sleeper v. Loring, 2013 ME 112, ¶ 22, 83 A.3d 769 (ordering the trial court on remand to evaluate whether other lot owners with easement rights in the subject right of way might be prejudiced by the decision on remand requiring them to be joined in the action pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 19(a)). Defendants seek to block the road as it has existed for almost a century. Meanwhile, plaintiff Fissmer claims if the location of the deeded easement is across property she considers to be hers, then the easement has been extinguished by adverse possession and/or abandonment. Although unlikely, it is possible that the court could find there is no right of way across the existing road and the original deeded easement was extinguished. Such a result would be highly prejudicial to owners/possessors of the dominant estates, and they would "be free to relitigate" the easements location if not joined. Efstathiou, 456 A.2d at 893. Therefore, they are also necessary parties.
The joinder of the Gramses, the Burkes, and Mr. Siegel in this action may have sufficiently protected the interests of other similarly situated dominant estate holders who rely on Cunner Lane for access to their properties. However, they joined plaintiff Fissmer in her complaint, which contains the claims for adverse possession and abandonment of the easement across her property. Other unnamed lot owners may not wish to join in those claims in order to assert their interest in the deeded easement regardless of its location.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants David Smith and Cunner Lane, LLC's motion to dismiss is DENIED in part. IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiffs shall join within 30 days all persons owning land burdened by the Cunner Lane easement or abutting such easement;DATED: March 3, 2017
2. Plaintiffs shall join within 30 days all persons owning property benefitted by a right of way in Cunner Lane located in Cape Elizabeth, Maine; and
3. Defendants shall timely respond to the amended complaint pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12.
/s/_________
Hon. Lanee Walker
Justice, Maine Superior Court LESLIE FISSMER, Individually and as Trustee of the LESLIE S. FISSMER REVOCABLE TRUST Plaintiff,
v. DAVID D. SMITH and CUNNER LANE, LLC Defendants. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Before the court is Plaintiff's (hereafter "Fissmer") motion for contempt, M.R. Civ. P. 66(d), and Defendants' motion for sanctions. M.R. Civ. P. 11. An evidentiary hearing on the motion for contempt was held on September 30, 2016. Plaintiff was present with her attorneys. Defendants did not appear, save through their attorneys. Based on the following, Fissmer's motion for contempt is granted and as a natural consequence, Defendants' motion for sanctions is denied.
I. FACTS
As a result of Plaintiff's contemporary filing of a motion for temporary restraining order with the initial pleadings in this case, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on August 22, 2016 at 9:23 a.m. Relevant to the present motion for contempt, the Order stated that "Defendants are further restrained from removing any post that was placed by Plaintiff near the end of Cunner Lane, near Plaintiff's property." Fissmer testified that on August 26, 2016, she observed Defendant Smith in the presence of his attorney, remove a 4"x4" wooden post very near the end of her driveway. Fissmer's testimony was undisputed and further corroborated by photographs she took of the incident which were admitted as Plaintiff's Exhibits 1-6. Fissmer testified that she feels intimidated by Defendant Smith and that she is concerned about what she perceives as his flagrant disregard of a lawful court order and what that might portend for her peace of mind as the present lawsuit progresses.
Defendants did not call any witnesses and did not offer any other evidence. Attorney Atkins' argument, which took on a different form than that made in his opposition to Fissmer's motion, is that the post in question is some 26 feet from Fissmer's property and therefore does not fall within the court's proscription that Defendant not remove any post placed by Plaintiff located near Plaintiff's property, insofar as 26 feet is not near enough to be considered near Plaintiff's property.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Contempt, Rule 66(d)
A motion for contempt pursuant to Rule 66(d) may be granted if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the alleged contemnor has failed or refused to perform an act required or continues to do an act prohibited by a court order, and (2) it is within the alleged contemnor's power to perform the act required or cease performance of the act prohibited.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant Smith has violated the Order and that it was well within his power to comply with the Order. Therefore, Defendant Smith is in contempt of the Temporary Restraining Order. The argument that 26 feet is not near enough to fall within the prohibition of the Order is hollow and was only made at the hearing for the first time. As a practical matter, parties subject to a Temporary Restraining Order may reasonably be expected to conduct themselves more cautiously than to cavalierly act in a way that violates it under the auspices that the conduct falls just outside the prohibition. Second, the alleged conduct was performed by Mr. Smith while in the presence of his attorney of record in the present case, somewhat undermining the Defendant's original argument that he thought the post was on his property and therefore, he believed that he could remove it. On its face the Order does not admit to such a tortured interpretation. In fact the Order speaks of removal of a post near Plaintiff's property, which by definition would include posts on other people's property. Finally, there was no other post with which the Order's prohibition could reasonably have been confused. The post in question sits a couple of paces adjacent to Fissmer's driveway. The fortuity that the ownership of that land may be in dispute somewhat misses the point of a Temporary Restraining Order generally and this one in particular, which is to maintain the status quo while the underlying dispute is resolved in an orderly manner through the course of litigation.
Fissmer stated at the hearing that the post has been restored to its original position.
As an alternative to coercive sanctions that are available under the Rule, the Court imposes the following remedial sanctions: attorney's fees and costs incurred by Fissmer arising out of or connected to the removal of the post, attempted communication between attorneys for the parties regarding the same, time expended on the motion for contempt and motion for sanctions, along with time to prepare for and attend the hearing on the motion for contempt.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for contempt is granted. Defendants' motion for sanctions is denied.
Defendants' motion for sanctions is grounded upon the argument that the motion for contempt is frivolous. Because the motion for contempt is granted, Defendants' motion for sanctions is necessarily denied. --------
The Clerk is directed to enter this Order on the civil docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a). Date: October 3, 2016
/s/_________
Lance E. Walker
Justice, Superior Court