Opinion
Civil Action CV-22-124
10-23-2023
JOAN GORDON v. ANDREA AND TIMOTHY CHIASSON
Plaintiff-Michael Vaillancourt, Esq. Defendants-Andrew Broaddus, Esq.
Plaintiff-Michael Vaillancourt, Esq.
Defendants-Andrew Broaddus, Esq.
ORDER
Thomas R. McKeon, Justice
This matter came before the court for a bench trial on October 11 and 12. 2023. Having considered the testimony and reviewed the exhibits, the court now makes its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Joan Gordan owned a parcel of land with a home and a barn at 139 Wescott Rd. in Gorham, Maine.
2. As of 2014, she had lived there for about 35 years.
3. Joan's daughter, Susan Hynes, held a power of attorney for Joan at all times relevant to this case. Joan is currently 94 year's old. Joan testified at trial and came across as competent, but needing some help as one would expect with her age.
4. Andrea Chiasson is Joan's granddaughter and Susan's niece. She is married to Timothy Chiasson.
5. In about 2014, Joan realized she should no longer live alone and moved in with Susan in a home Susan purchased in Westbrook that would accommodate both of them.
6. Both Joan and Susan expressed a desire to keep the Gorham property in the family.
7. In 2014 Joan and Susan made an oral arrangement with. Andrea and Timothy where Andrea and Timothy would move into the Gorham property with their children.
8, It was expected that Andrea and Timothy would live there for the rest of their lives. In 2017, after Andrea and Timothy moved in, Joan conveyed the property into a trust that would govern what happened to the property after her death. While she was alive, Joan would maintain control of the property.
9. Pursuant to the oral agreement, Andrea and Timothy would make a regular payment of about $350 to Joan which would cover taxes and insurance.
10. In addition, Andrea and Timothy would take care of the house and keep it in good repair. Any improvements would have to be approved by Joan, but would be Andrea and Timothy's responsibility.
11. Essentially, because the parties contemplated that Andrea and Timothy would live there the rest of their lives, it was expected that Andrea and Timothy would be responsible for the repairs as well as any changes they made to the property.
12. There was nothing in the oral agreement between the parties or the trust document, however, that indicated that Joan could not change the terms at any time.
13. As part of the oral agreement, Andrea and Timothy agreed to install a new deck, repave the driveway, and remodel the kitchen. There was no agreement on either the details of that work or the length of time it was expected to take.
14. When Andrea and Timothy moved in, they needed to clean the premises as agreed by the parties. They were anxious to move in and did not want to wait for Gordon to clean the property.
15. Joan and Susan perceived that they were eager about maintaining and improving the property.
16. In 2018, Andrea approached Joan and indicated that they did not have the money to make certain improvements.
17, Both Andrea and Joan, because she was the owner of the property, signed a Home Equity Line of Credit of up to $50,000 with Gorham Savings Bank. The court is persuaded that the Line of Credit was Andrea's obligation to repay. There was no agreement regarding how long she would take to repay the Line of Credit. It is clear, however, that it was not a debt that the parties intended Joan to bear.
18, Between 2018 and 2021, Andrea used the entire line of credit. Some of the funds were used on improvements that remained with and benefited the house. Other funds were used for household purposes but did not result in improvements to the property, Andrea made payments on the Line of Credit which kept up with the interest and sometimes the principal. As of the spring of 2021, however, almost the entire Line of Credit had been spent.
19. Over the course of the time that Andrea and Timothy lived at the property, they worked on several projects. On the projects they did on their own, instead of luring a contractor, the court finds that the work was not done in a workmanlike fashion, including electrical wiring that was not to code. The court does not fault them for the amateur work because they expected to live there the rest of their lives and would simply live with any flaws.The court finds that those projects, such as the lean-to, their painting work, their carpentry and their landscaping, did not add substantial value to the real property. The only projects on the list marked as Defendant's Exhibit #2 that added substantial value to the property were the deck and the half bath and office in the basement.
20. In the Spring of 2021, Joan and Susan had a falling out with Timothy and Andrea. Joan and Susan became alarmed at the expenditure of the entire Line of Credit without any work performed on two of the larger projects they planned to complete, namely the kitchen and the driveway.
21. When the parties met, Timothy and Andrea were not willing to meet the expectations laid out by Susan. Communication quickly and completely ceased between the parties. The court does not assign fault as both parties appeared to contribute to the breakdown in communication. Susan's demands present a substantial shift in the way the relationship had worked since 2014. Timothy and Andrea did not respond well to that and did not recognize the concerns that generated the demands.
22. Timothy and Andrea bought a house and moved out while not communicating with Susan or Joan.
23. Susan upon inspecting the house was alarmed at its condition. The testimony provided evidence of substantial deferred maintenance. The evidence also suggests no effort by Timothy or Andrea to put the house in the appropriate condition upon leaving. Joan and Susan had to expend money and effort putting the house in a position suitable for rental to a third party.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Counts I and II: Breach of contract
Counts I and II allege breach of contract. The court must first determine whether any legally binding contracts existed.
To establish a legally binding agreement the parties must have mutually assented to be bound by all of its material terms; the assent must be reflected and manifested in the contract, either expressly or impliedly; and the contract must be sufficiently definite to enable the court to determine its exact meaning and fix exactly the legal liability of the parties.Roy v. Danis, 553 A.2d 663, 664 (Me, 1989).
As pled, Count I reads as though the parties entered into a contract where Timothy and Andrea would pay Joan rent and breached the contract by failing to do so, Joan conceded at trial that rent in the form of monthly payments is not at issue. Instead, one form of "rent" that Timothy and Andrea were intended to pay was for certain repairs and maintenance that they agreed to make and that they failed to do so. That was the issue that was actually tried and the court is not going to base its decision on Count 1 on the failure to properly plead the breach of contract.
Instead, the court finds that Joan failed to prove a contract that is sufficiently definite to enforce. The parties did agree Timothy and Andrea would live in the premises. They would take care of taxes and insurance. It was also expected that Joan would not have to pay for the upkeep of the property. Timothy and Andrea would support the property as if it were their own. It was assumed they could live there for the rest of their lives. Joan still controlled the property, however, and their ability to live there was not unconditional.
With respect to the failure to maintain or to make certain improvements, such as the driveway or the kitchen, the contract is too indefinite to enforce. There is no timeline for when the work was to be done and there is no standard or specification with respect to how the work would be done. There are a lot of different ways to remodel a kitchen or even to maintain property. There is no standard by which the court could find liability based on Timothy and Andrea's decision to do one project in their own style or defer maintenance on a window or some other part of the house. Therefore, the court cannot find them liable for breach of contract and the court finds for the Defendant on Count I.
On Count II, the court is confronted with a similar issue. Gordon agreed to the Line of Credit with the understanding that Andrea and Timothy would bear the primary obligation on the on the Note and that Joan ultimately would be free of liability. Andrea and Timothy would then have tire money available in order to work on the property. The agreement, however, was silent on when Timothy and Andrea would have to pay the Line of Credit off. The agreement was silent on how and when the loan proceeds would be used. The agreement was also silent as to what would happen to the Line of Credit in the event of a termination. Therefore, the court cannot find that there was an agreement sufficiently definite to enforce. The court enters judgment for the Defendants on Count II.
Counts III and IV: Unjust Enrichment
Counts III and IV allege unjust enrichment. In order to recover, a plaintiff must show three elements: 1) a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; 2) an appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; and 3) the acceptance or retention by the defendant of the benefit under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without payment of its value. Knope v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 2017 ME 95, ¶ 12, 161 A.3d 696. A person who is spared an expense or loss also receives a benefit. Horton & McGehee, Maine Civil Remedies §7.3 at 176 (4th ed. 2004).
With respect to Count III, even if the court was to read the Complaint as stating the failure to make repairs in lieu of rent, the court does not find that Plaintiff has met her burden to prove the elements of unjust enrichment relating to their obligation to maintain the properly. In theory, the benefit would be that they were permitted to live on the premises at a very low rent. Because of the indefinite nature of the repair and maintenance agreement, and because the Defendants were maintaining the property on some level, the court cannot find that the Defendants appreciated or knew they were receiving a specific benefit which they would be expected to pay. Therefore, the court finds for the Defendants on Count III.
On Count IV, however, the court finds for the Plaintiff. The record is that Joan conferred a benefit on Timothy and Andrea by agreeing to accept liability on the Line of Credit so that Timothy and Andrea could obtain the funds to put into the house. It was reasonable for her to pay off the loan to prevent further liability given the uncertainty about whether Timothy and Andrea would continue to meet their obligation after the lease was terminated. Andrea, when entering into the Line of Credit agreement, understood that Joan was conferring this benefit on her. She also understood that if the circumstances required Joan pay off the loan, then she and Timothy would be avoiding a debt. It would be unfair for Andrea and Timothy to retain the benefits of at least a portion of the Line of Credit proceeds given the circumstances. Therefore, the court finds for the Plaintiff on Count III.
The remaining issue is to what degree Andrea and Timothy were unjustly enriched. The court is persuaded that the deck project and the bathroom/office project in the basement were improvements to the real estate. The court is also persuaded that Joan did not receive any benefit from the expenditures of the remaining Line of Credit funds.
The court carefully considered Joan's arguments that it was the responsibility of Timothy and Andrea to fund the improvements in the first place. The court weighs that argument against the purposes of an unjust enrichment award to make one whole. Given that Joan has received the benefit of the improvements, the court concludes that equity requires that the court only order reimbursement of the Line of Credit funds that did not benefit the property.
The only evidence of the value of the improvements was the cost to construct them. Given the evidence in the case, however, the court considers only the work completed by professionals as adding value to the property. The value of the deck improvement was $12,036. The value of the basement office and bathroom was $ 1,633. Joan spent $49,580 to satisfy the Line of Credit obligation.
On Count IV, the court finds for the Plaintiff in the amount of $35,911.
Count V: Negligence
To recover on a negligence claim, the Plaintiff meet the following elements;
A cause of action for negligence has four elements: (1) a duty of care owed to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an injury; and (4) causation, that is, a finding that the breach of the duty of care was a cause of the injury.Bell ex rel. Bell v. Dawson, 2013 ME 108, ¶ 17, 82 A.3d 827 (quoting Estate of Smith v. Cumberland Cnty., 2013 ME 13, ¶ 16, 60 A.3d 759) . Here, a tenant owes a landlord a duty not to damage a landlord's premises. See 14 M.R.S. § 6010 (allowing a landlord's claim for damages caused by a tenant). The court also finds the tenant did not exercise reasonable care to avoid damage to the property. The tenant competed electrical work that was not to code, completed additional work that was not done in a workmanlike fashion, and did not exercise reasonable care to clean or repair the property at the end of the tenancy as amply demonstrated by the photographs.
Turning to tire damages caused by the tenant's negligence, the court must distinguish between funds that Joan spent on repairing that damage from funds that Joan would have to spend upon deciding to put the property onto the rental market, funds spent repairing negligent construction with no negative impact on the value of the property, and funds spent on items that completed improvements or deferred maintenance that the court has found were not the contractual liability of Timothy and Andrea.
Turning to Exhibit 11, the court finds that Gordon did not show it was more likely than not that items ## 4, (Defendants not liable for rent after they vacated) 5, 9,10, 11, 12, 13,14,15, 17, 18, 19, (lean-to was not installed in a workmanlike fashion, but court finds its presence does not diminish value of the property), 20, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,28, 29, 3 land 32 were damages caused by the Defendants' failure to repair conditions on the property that they caused. In some instances there simply was not enough evidence for the court to make a finding.
The court is satisfied that it is more likely than not that Defendants' negligent conduct was a substantial factor creating the need for the repairs listed in items 1 ($3,118), 6 ($405), 8 ($110) and 16($179). With respect to Items 2-4 and 7, the evidence does not distinguish damages as a result of Defendants' negligent conduct from other types of repairs. The court is persuaded, however, that it is more likely than not that Defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of $5000 worth of the repairs in those categories.
On Count V, the court finds for the Plaintiff in the amount of $8,812.
The Entry is:
Judgment for the Defendants on Counts I, II and III.
Judgment for the Plaintiffs on Counts IV and V for a total amount of $44,723, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest.
This Order is incorporated on the docket by reference pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).