# Headd v. Gardner > Superior Court of Maine ยท March 8, 2007 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10808963 ## Case - **Court:** Superior Court of Maine - **Decided:** March 8, 2007 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Joyce A. Wheeler - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10808963 ## Opinion text STATE OF MAINE ---., j - , ____ , '" '. :;I,!-. ;; ? - ' 3 , . ,.>. . , , SUPERIOR COURT PENOBSCOT, SS. i $,-,,3.?rT .13! ")j3- ,-. ... , . ...: ! -' '"'-?- : I. a i Docket NO.CV-05-305 i \ t , . . f / i hiIi / I ;! 1 2537 I! 1 1 MICHAEL HEADD, ~ 3 l J : ~ j . j - Y!I Plaintiff, \ _,_._,,_.,___,_,,_...--.--..- I--- DECISION AND IUDGMENT ) 1 BRYDEN ALAN GARDNER, ) Defendant. ) A non-jury trial was held in the above matter on March 8,2007. All parties were present and represented by counsel. The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement whereby the Plaintiff would haul materials for the Defendant' using Plaintiff's tractor and the Defendant's trailer. The parties agreed that he would be paid as an independent contractor at the rate of $45 per hour. Their contract was not reduced to writing and involved no other express terms. The Plaintiff kept a daily tally sheet in triplicate reflecting the hours whch he spent hauling the material. The w h t e form went to the Defendant, the pink form went to Thibodeau, and the Plaintiff retained the yellow sheet for hmself. The Defendant's copies were left on a bulletin board at Thibodeau's dispatch center. The Defendant would retrieve them and issue a check - with a week delay - to the Plaintiff for the amount due. Although there were occasional disparities between the amounts sought by the Plaintiff and the amount paid, the contract proceeded successfully until the week of October 24,2005, when the checks stopped arriving. The Plaintiff kept worlung through the week of November 14,2005, under the agreement. Plaintiff claims to have made several attempts to contact the Defendant about the missing payments including leaving notes on the bulletin board and mahng calls (but not leaving messages) on the DefendanYs cell phone. Defendant denies receiving any of these communications. The Plaintiff, who was in dire financial straits, undertook to haul materials for another contractor (Mike Thornton) and discontinued his work on the Thibodeau contract. Defendant heard of this and the parties engaged in a heated argument in late November, 2005. Plaintiff demanded all of the sums due to h m (a sum in excess of I The Defendant had a contract with Vaughn Thibodeau to haul certain excavation materials to various sites. The deliveries would be dispatched from Thibodeau's business site. The Defendant had three other trailers committed to this contract. $8,000) and would accept nothing less. Defendant offered to pay for what he believed' to be the immediate past due amounts (a sum in excess of $5,000), but not the current , . amounts. He demanded the return of h s trailer. Neither party was prepared to budge on their demands and the conversation degenerated to a point where the two parted ways. The trailer was later returned after law enforcement authorities were contacted. The Plaintiff had used it in the meantime to earn income for hauling for three days. The Defendant asserts that it was damaged.2The Plaintiff states that any damage was - simply ordinary wear and tear. The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks the sum of $7920; the Defendant's Counterclaim seeks damages for loss of income from the trailer and damage allegedly inflicted by the l'laintiff. Judgment is granted on the Plaintiff's Complaint in the amount of $8,077.50 plus interest and costs! The Plaintiffs use of the trailer for income purposes, whether characterized as conversion or trespass to chattel justifies entry of Judgment in favor of the Defendant on his Counterclaim for the fair value of the equipment as reflected by its actual use: $230 per day for three days = $690. Judgment may be entered in favor of the Defendant on the Counterclaim in that amount plus interest and costs.3 The Clerk may incorporate this Order upon t M o c k e t by reference. Dated: March 8, 2007 SUPERIOR COURT - - - 2 He reports that the mud flaps were disengaged, the fenders were crinkled, two hydraulic boxes were missing, and one tire was apparently replaced with a mismatched tire. He asserts that repairs would cost approximately $2300, but he has not repaired anything beyond simply attempting to manually straighten them out. Prejudgment interest is awarded at 5.21% per annurn and postjudgment interest is awarded at 8.21% per annum. 03/21/2007 MAINE J U D I C I A L INFORMATION SYSTEM k s m ith PENOBSCOT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT mj x x i 0 1 3 PAGE A - ATTORNEY BY CASE VIEW MICHAEL HEADD VS BRYDEN A GARDNER DBA BA GARDNER PAVING AND EXCAVATING UTN:AOCSsr -2005-0131087 CASE # : B A N K - C V - 2 0 0 5 - 0 0 3 0 5 ................................................................................ SEL VD REPRESENTATION TYPE DATE 01 0000003913 ATTORNEY:CHASE, D A V I D ADDR:700 MOUNT HOPE AVENUE 440 EVERGREEN WOODS BANGOR ME 04401 F F0R:BRYDEN A GARDNER DBA BA GARDNER PAVING DEF RTND 02/10/2006 02 0000008023 ATTORNEY:ERICKSON, MATTHEW ADDR:28 M A I N STREET BANGOR ME 04401 F F0R:MICHAEL HEADD PL RTND 06/21/2006 P 03 0000008735 A R N E Y V ADDR:275 FRENCH TREET PO BOX 8312 BANGOR ME 04401 F F0R:MICH L HEADD PL RTND 12/22/2005 W/DRWN 06/21/2006 E n t e r O p t i o n : A=Add, B+Sel=Browse, M=More, R + S e l = R l t n E d i t : S e l e c t t h e E X I T KEY f o r p a g e s e l e c t i o n l i n e . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10808963. Public record. Not legal advice.