Opinion
CV-23-34
02-07-2024
ANTHONY TOWNSEND, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL OSBORNE, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Patricia Pease, Defendants
JUDGMENT
Jennifer A. Archer Maine Superior Court.
This matter came before the Court for a damages hearing on January 29, 2024, the Defendants' default having been entered on November 29, 2023. Plaintiff Anthony Townsend appeared and was represented by Erica Connolly, Esq. The Defendants failed to appear. The Plaintiff gave very brief testimony in support of damages, and counsel made argument. The Court then took the matter under advisement.
Count I of the Complaint seeks damages in the amount of $12,905.32, which damages were proven by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also argued through counsel that the Court should apply Massachusetts General Law 93A and award him triple damages. As there is no basis for application of the law or the award of triple damages, that request is denied.
The Court cautions counsel to limit its arguments and requests for relief to those that have an actual basis in the law. The mere fact that a party was defaulted does not give the Plaintiff license to make specious requests for relief.
The Court enters judgment for the Defendants on the remaining counts of the Complaint. The Plaintiff's fraud claim (Count II) is based upon the Defendants' failure to perform. The "breach of a promise to do something in the future will not support an action of deceit, even though there may have been a preconceived intention not to perform." Boivin v. Jones & Vining, Inc., 578 A.2d 187, 188 (Me. 1990) (quoting Shine v. Dodge, 130 Me. 440, 443, 157 A. 318 (1931)). The Court enters judgment for the Defendants on Count II of the Complaint.
The Court's entry of judgment on the breach of contract claim precludes the Plaintiff's recovery on its unjust enrichment claim. See Cummings v. Bean, 2004 ME 93, ¶ 9, 853 A.2d 221. Court therefore enters judgment for the Defendants on Count III. Likewise, as the Plaintiff's conversion claim is an alternative claim for relief to his breach of contract claim and the Plaintiff has a contract remedy for his damage, he is barred from recovering on Count IV of the Complaint. See Innovative Network Sols., Inc. v. Onestar Communications, LLC, 283 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (D. Me. 2003); Riley v. Gilmore, 2006 WL 5255497 (Me. Super. Feb. 1, 2006). The Court therefore enters judgment for the Defendants on Count IV.
Last, the Plaintiff seeks damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Plaintiff presented no damages evidence in support of this claim. As there is no independent tortious conduct and no evidence as to damages, the Court enters judgment for the Defendants on Count V of the Complaint. See Stull v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2000 ME 21, ¶ 14, 745 A.2d 975.
The entry is:
1. Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants on Count I of the Complaint in the amount of $12,905.32, plus interest and costs.
2. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff on Counts II, III, IV, and V of the Complaint.
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is directed to enter this Judgment on the civil docket by a notation incorporating it by reference.