PAMELA J. GUERRETIE, ET AL., Plaintiff,
ELLEN L. DYER and BEACON APPRAISAL COMPANY, INC., Defendant
FOR PLAINTIFFS: ROBERT NADEAU, NADEAU LEGAL PPLC, BIDDEFORD ME.
FOR DEFENDANT: JAMES M BOWIE, THOMPSON & BOWIE, PORTLAND ME.
John O'Neil, Jr., Justice, Superior Court.
Plaintiffs Pamela J. Guerrette and Daniel R. Guerrette are husband and wife. They reside at 3 Overlook Drive in Sanford, York County, Maine, with Plaintiffs Gray don L. Lockard and Dorothy E. Lockard, who are also husband and wife. On June 20, 2012, Plaintiffs signed a purchase and sales agreement with the then-sellers of the real estate located at 3 Overlook Drive for a total price of $239, 900.00 subject to the " property appraising at or above purchase price..."
Defendants, Beacon Appraisal Company, Inc. and Ellen Dyer, were retained by the Mortgage Lender acting through Lender X to perform an appraisal of the property. Defendants provided an appraisal, certifying that the value of the premises was $240, 000.00. The Appraisal Report contained the following provisions:
o " the lender/ client may disclose or distribute this appraisal report to: the borrower..." ¶ 21
o " The Borrower ... may rely on this appraisal report as part of any mortgage finance transaction that involves any one or more of these parties..." ¶ 23
o " Any intentional or negligent misrepresentation(s) contained in this appraisal report may result in civil liability and / or criminal penalties" ¶ 25.
Plaintiffs purchased the property on August 17, 2012, for the contract price of $239, 900.00. Shortly thereafter, in September 2012, the individual Plaintiffs deeded the premises to the Lockard Family Trust. Following the purchase, Plaintiffs allege to have made repairs and improvements to the property totaling $26, 526.56. After the repairs, Plaintiffs got an appraisal of the property for refinancing purposes. The property was appraised at $200, 000. Plaintiffs assert that the pertinent market values had not markedly changed between the time of Defendants' appraisal report and the time of Plaintiffs' attempted refinancing. Plaintiffs bring claims of Negligence/Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract/Warranty, Fraud/Deceit, Punitive Damages, and Unfair Trade Practices. Defendants now move the court for Summary Judgment.
II. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 ME 20, ¶ 11, 989 A.2d 733; Dyer v. Department of Transportation, 2008 ME 106, ¶ 14, 951 A.2d 821. When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews the parties' statements of material facts and the cited record evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
A genuine issue of material fact exists where the fact finder must make a determination between differing versions of the truth. Reliance National Indemnity v. Knowles Industrial Services Corp., 2005 ME 29, ¶ 7, 868 A.2d 220; citing Univ. of Me. Found. v. Fleet Bank of Me., 2003 ME 20, ¶ 20, 817 A.2d 871. Furthermore, " a ...