Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Appletree Cottage LLC v. Bond

Superior Court of Maine, Cumberland

October 6, 2017

APPLETREE COTTAGE LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BOND Defendant.

          Attorney for: APPLETREE COTTAGE LLC SIGMUND D SCHUTZ - PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS LLP

          Attorney for: APPLETREE COTTAGE LLC LAURA RIDEOUT - PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS LLP

          Attorney for: APPLETREE COTTAGE LLC JONATHAN BROGAN - NORMAN HANSON & DETROY LLC

          Attorney for: THOMAS M EGAN SIGMUND D SCHUTZ - PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS LLP

          Attorney for: THOMAS M EGAN J WILLIAM DRUARY JR - MARDEN DUBORD BERNIER & STEVENS PA LLP

          Attorney for: THOMAS M EGAN JONATHAN BROGAN - NORMAN HANSON & DETROY LLC

          Attorney for: CAPTAIN ELLIOT LLC SIGMUND D SCHUTZ - PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS LLP

          Attorney for: CAPTAIN ELLIOT LLC JONATHAN BROGAN - NORMAN HANSON & DETROY LLC

          ORDER

          THOMAS D. WARREN, JUSTICE, SUPERIOR COURT

         At the conclusion of the non-jury trial in this case, the court was prepared to award nominal damages to counterclaim-plaintiff Christopher Bond on his claim of common law trespass. Counterclaim-defendant Thomas Egan never disputed that he had entered Bond's property on three occasions to investigate whether Bond was violating or preparing to violate a restrictive covenant. Egan did not damage or disturb Bond's property or enter any structures, but he took photographs on two of the occasions. On the first of those occasions Egan entered without authorization or consent from Bond.

         The reason why the court reserved decision on the common law trespass claim was that Bond argued that his own subsequent unauthorized entry on Egan's land - although not the subject of any claim in this action - had been privileged. If Bond's entry had been privileged, there was at least a question whether Egan's entry was similarly privileged.

         A person who intentionally enters land in possession of another without authorization commits a trespass regardless of whether he causes any damage. Restatement (Second) Torts § 163; Medeika v. Watts, 2008 ME 163 ¶ 5, 957 A.2d 980. Bond had not posted any no trespassing sign, and he had never informed Egan that he could not enter. However, the court can find no authority for the proposition that authorization to enter a neighbor's property may be presumed.[1]

         There was testimony at trial that on September 3, 2015, after Egan's first entry, Bond sent one or more emails authorizing Egan to go to his property (the actual exchange of emails was not offered or admitted into evidence). Although the court has found that it is more likely than not that Egan did not enter Bond's land on September 3 itself, the court concludes that Bond's emailed permission constituted consent (never revoked) for Egan's subsequent two entries.

         Nevertheless, Egan's first entry was unauthorized. The existence of the restrictive covenant did not provide Egan with a privilege to enter Bond's land to investigate a potential violation of the covenant. In contrast with Willow Lake Residential Association v, Juliano,80 So.2d 226, 248-49 (Ala.App. 2010), the restrictive covenant in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.