# Nadeau v. People's United Bank

> Superior Court of Maine · June 12, 2013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10810303

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Maine
- **Decided:** June 12, 2013
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/10810303

## Opinion text

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKETNO: CV-12)15
,)"1 ,p}- Cv,.lf',- 0/lf""<ol~
ROBERT M.A. NADEAU,
Individually and obo NADEAU
LAW, LLC
Plaintiff

v. DECISION AND ORDER

PEOPLE'S UNITED BANK,
fka OCEAN NATIONAL
BANK

LAMBERT COFFIN, P.A. fka
LAMBERT COFFIN HAENN

and MICHAEL S. HAENN, ESQ

Defendants

DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants Lambert Coffin, P.A., fka Lambert Coffin Haenn (Lambert Coffin)

and Michael D. Haenn (Haenn), each bring a Motion to Dismiss under M.R.Civ.P

12(b)(6) 1, seeking dismissal of Counts I- VII of the Complaint against them. Robert

M.A. Nadeau, individually and o/b/o Nadeau Law, LLC, 2 (Nadeau) opposed the

dismissal of all counts. Nadeau's complaint is based on his allegations concerning the

wrongful freezing of two client trust accounts by Haenn and his client, the Bank,

notwithstanding two court orders requiring them to release the accounts, and Haenn's

1
Lambert Coffin alternatively files a motion for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) in the
event the court concludes that the filing of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is untimely. Because Lambert Coffin
raised the defense of failure to state a claim in its answer, it is therefore entitled to raise this issue by
motion under either Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c). Lambert Coffin endorses, joins in and incorporates by
reference arguments raised by Haenn. Lambert Coffin, Mot. Dismiss, p. 2.
2
Nadeau Law, LLC no longer exists as it has been dissolved. As such, it is not a party to this lawsuit.

1
"pattern of behavior over many months to disparage, taunt, demean and upset attorney

Nadeau." (Pl.'s Compl., Nature of Action.) Nadeau alleges that defendants' conduct

caused Nadeau's client to file a grievance complaint against him because he was unable

to access and release the funds to which his client was entitled.

BACKGROUND

Attorney Haenn filed a lawsuit, Ocean Bank v. Nadeau & Assoc.s, Inc. and

Nadeau Law, LLC, 07-CV-156 (Me. Dist. Ct., York) on October 7, 2007 against Nadeau

Law and Nadeau & Associates to collect on a commercial loan owed by Nadeau's former

law firm, Nadeau & Associates, wrongfully claiming that a real estate trust account and a

client trust account ofNadeau & Associates were subject to a security agreement Nadeau

& Associates had executed to secure a loan in favor of Bank. (Pl.'s Compl. ~~ 10-11.)

Nadeau & Associates had established with the Bank one account to escrow funds related

to real estate transactions and another account for client deposit funds subject to Maine's

IOLTA. (Pl.'s Compl. ~ 12.) The action of freezing the accounts prevented Nadeau from

transferring those funds to Nadeau Law's trust accounts. Nadeau was obligated to

transfer the trust funds for clients who were then represented by Nadeau Law, and not

Nadeau & Associates. (Pl.'s Compl. ~ 13.) Nadeau filed a counterclaim to the Bank's

collection action, raising the wrongful seizure of the client trust account and real estate

trust account.

On February 7, 2008, Nadeau placed Nadeau & Associates in Chapter 7

bankruptcy 3 . (Pl.'s Compl. ~ 13.) The Defendants immediately caused to be frozen and

3
Nadeau also filed for personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy and received a discharge on February 26, 2008,
which was later revoked in an Adversary Proceeding brough by the U.S. Trustee against Nadeau for
reckless disregard of his bankruptcy disclosure obligations. Ultimately, the Adversary Proceeding was
dismissed on May 25,2010 pursuant to a stipulation between the U.S. Trustee and Nadeau. As a result,

2
seized the two client trust accounts for the benefit of the Bank. (Pl.'s Compl. ~ 13.)

Defendants' actions prevented Nadeau from transferring client trust accounts funds to

Nadeau Law's trust accounts as Nadeau was required to do for the benefit of his affected

clients who were then represented by Nadeau Law, instead ofNadeau & Associates.

(Pl.'s Compl. ~ 13.) The Defendants failed to release the accounts for more than 20

months after Nadeau obtained a judgment against the Bank in York District Court on July

8, 2009, ordering the immediate release ofthe funds. (Pl.'s Compl. ~~ 14, 21l

Subsequently one ofNadeau's clients pursued a professional grievance against Nadeau

due to his inability to access and release the funds to which the affected client was

entitled. (Pl.'s Compl. ~ 18.) After more than three years the professional grievance

against Nadeau was dismissed following a contested hearing. (Pl.'s Compl. ~ 19.)

On August 11, 2009 Nadeau obtained a revised judgment from the York District

Court, which required the immediate release of the client accounts to Nadeau and his

former law firms. (Pl.'s Compl. ~ 21, 22. ) 5 Despite the issuance of the revised judgment

against the Defendant, the Bank continued to fail to comply with the judgment as

ordered: The Bank would not release the funds held until it received direction and

authorization from its attorney, Michael Haenn. Additionally, the Bank, by and through

Haenn, attempted on a post-judgment basis to secure Nadeau's release of any and all

future claims Nadeau was eligible or could be eligible to pursue against them unless

Nadeau remained as a guarantor who was personally liable to the Bank on the promissory note to his law
firm.
4
On or about July 9, 2009, the York District Court entered an order on defendant's motion for entry of
default and default judgment. People's United Bank v. Nadeau & Associates, 07-CV-156, (Me. Dist. Ct.,
York, July 9, 2009) (Cantara, J.).
5
On or about August 11, 2009, the York District Court entered a revised order on Defendant's Motion for
Corrected Default Judgment. People's United Bank v. Nadeau & Associates, 07 -CV -156, (Me. Dist. Ct.,
York, August 11, 2009) (Cantara, J.).

3
Nadeau signed a general release in favor of both Defendants regarding any claims. (Pl.'s

Compl. ,-r 24.)

Eventually, Nadeau initiated a professional grievance complaint against Haenn.

(Pl.'s Compl. ,-r 25.) On December 29, 2011, Haenn received a public reprimand from the

Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, GCF #09-380, for his conduct related to this

matter. (Pl.'s Compl. ,-r 25l

Nadeau brought his complaint on May 3, 2012 seeking to hold Attorney Haenn

and his principals liable. On October 11, 2012 this Court granted Nadeau's Assented to

Motion to Dismiss Claims Against Defendant People's United, with prejudice and

without costs to any party pursuant to a Settlement Agreement.

DISCUSSION

I. Standing

Defendants argue that the Complaint should be dismissed because Nadeau does

not have standing to bring any of the claims against Haenn or Lambert Coffin.

Defendants contend that Nadeau's former law firm, Nadeau & Associates, and not

Nadeau, held the Accounts in question. Defendants argue that when Nadeau & Associates

went through bankruptcy in 2008, Nadeau & Associates did not list these claims against

Haenn as assets on its schedule B (despite listing the Accounts themselves). Defendants

argue that Nadeau & Associates' failure to list these claims as its assets in it bankruptcy

filings means that the claims were never administered or abandoned by the bankruptcy

trustee. Therefore, according to defendants, neither Nadeau & Associates, nor much less

6
The Board concluded that "Haenn violated duties he owed to the legal system by not timely complying
with the District Court's August 11, 2009 Judgment and abused the legal process causing injury to Nadeau
and his clients." Board of Overseers of the Bar v. MichaelS. Haenn, Esq., GCF 09-380, Stipulated Report
of Findings and Order of Panel D of the Grievance Commission at 7 (Dec. 29, 2011.

4
Nadeau, have standing to bring these claims against Haenn because they remain property

ofthe bankruptcy estate.

Nadeau counters that the real estate escrow fund and the client trust fund held

nominally by Nadeau & Associates were never property of the bankrupt estate ofNadeau

& Associates. Rather the funds in the accounts were the property of clients ofNadeau &

Associates, and Nadeau &Associates was merely holding these funds and these accounts

in trust for the benefit of its clients. In support of his position Plaintiff cites Begier v.

IR.S., 496 U.S. 53, 59, 110 S.Ct. 2258,2263 (1990), in which the Supreme Court stated,

"Because the debtor does not own an equitable interest in property he holds in trust for

another, that interest is not 'property of the estate."'

Nadeau points out that the "Trustee in Associates' bankruptcy case ... agreed that

these accounts were not property of the estate and should not be listed as such and filed a

'Trustee's Abandonment of client trust accounts and real estate accounts (client funds) in

Ocean National Bank on July 24, 2008."' (Pl.'s Opposition at 3.)

This Court finds that Nadeau has standing to bring forth the claims against the

Defendants, because attorney Nadeau, not any legal entity, was personally and

professionally obligated to transfer to affected clients their unearned property and credits

to be held by the successor custodian of such property and credits pursuant to the

provisions ofthe Maine Bar Rules. See former M. BarR. 3.6(e) and M.R. Prof. Conduct

1.15. 7 See People's United Bankv. Nadeau & Assoc.s, 07-CV-156 (Me. Dist. Ct. 2, n.l,

York, August 11, 2009) (Cantara, J.) However, securing standing does not defeat the

motion to dismiss.

7
Maine Bar Rule 3.6(e) was replaced by Maine Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15, effective August 1,
2009.

5
II. Motion to Dismiss: Standard of Review

The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the

complaint. McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994). The court examines "the

complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth

elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief

pursuant to some legal theory." Id. When testing the complaint under M.R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6), the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted. Id.

"Dismissal is warranted when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is not entitled to

relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his claim." Johanson v.

Dunnington, 2001 ME 169, ~ 5, 785 A.2d 1244.

III. Plaintiff's Claims

A. Count I: Conversion

To establish conversion one must, in addition to establishing invasion of a

possessory interest, show (1) a property interest; (2) the right to possession at the time of

the alleged conversion; and (3) when the holder has acquired possession rightfully, a

demand by the person entitled to possession and a refusal by the holder to surrender.

Chiappetta v. LeBlond, 505 A.2d 783, 785 (Me. 1986). However, since Nadeau does not

allege that the defendants had rightful possession of the accounts, he is not required to

show that he made a demand for return of the property. Lougee Conservancy v.

Citimortgage, 2012 ME 103, ~ 21 n. 2, 48 A. 3d 774, 783 n. 2. Thus, Nadeau must

establish a property interest in and a right to possession of the accounts at the time of the

alleged conversion. Jd. at~ 21.

6
Defendant Haenn contends that he cannot be liable for conversion of the Accounts

because he did not "exercise dominion and control" over them. See Mitchell v. Allstate

Ins. Co., 2011 ME 133, ~15, 36 A.3d 876, 880 (explaining elements ofthe tort of

conversion). Haenn claims that the Bank, not Haenn or Lambert Coffin, had control and

authority over the Accounts and ultimately did make the final decision to freeze the

Accounts.

Lambert Coffin alleges that Nadeau cannot make out a claim for conversion

because he never had a possessory in~erest in the client trust accounts. This is the correct

analysis because Nadeau admits that Nadeau & Associates "did not possess any property

interest in the Accounts." (Pl.'s Brief in Opp. at 3). Nadeau has therefore failed to allege

the threshold element for the tort of conversion: that he had a property interest in the

property he claims was converted. Withers v. Hackett, 1998 ME 164, ~ 7, 714 A. 2d 798,

800. Even though Nadeau may have had an ethical obligation to take appropriate

measures to ensure that his clients' funds were returned to them, this obligation is not the

same as a property interest, a necessary element to establish a claim for conversion.

Nadeau mistakenly argues that he had a possessory interest on behalf of his

clients at the time Haenn froze the accounts and held the accounts for more than twenty

months, making them unavailable for transfer by Nadeau to his clients at his then law

firm Nadeau Law, notwithstanding the District Court Order to the contrary. It was

Nadeau's clients, not Nadeau, who had the possessory interest. Count I is DISMISSED.

B. Count II: Abuse of Process

To prove abuse of process, one must show that (1) "the use of process in a manner

improper in the regular conduct of the proceeding," and (2) "the existence of an ulterior

7
motive." Advanced Construction Corporation v. Pilecki, 2006 ME 84, ~ 23, 901 A. 2d

189, 197 (citation omitted). "The filing of a lawsuit qualifies as a regular use of process

and cannot constitute abuse of process, even if the filing was influenced by an ulterior

motive. 8 Instead, abuse of process claims arise when litigants misuse individual legal

procedures, such as discovery, subpoenas, and attachment, after a lawsuit has been filed."

!d. (citations omitted).

Defendants contend that the complaint nowhere suggests that the Bank did not

have a perfectly valid cause of action, or that the lawsuit was ·filed for any purpose other

than to collect on its loan. Nadeau counters that the refusal to comply with court orders

and release the funds was abuse of process and an improper motive must be inferred by

the very reprehensibility of the conduct.

The filing of a lawsuit against Nadeau's former law firm, Nadeau Law, LLC, to

collect on a commercial loan owed to Ocean National Bank by Nadeau's former law firm

Nadeau & Associates does not constitute an abuse of process. Nadeau alleges that when

viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, that Defendants freezing of and refusing to

release Nadeau's clients trust accounts in violation of a court order, causing harm to

Nadeau and his clients amounts to abuse of legal process. These actions may be contempt

of a court order, but regardless of any improper motive Haenn may have had, his actions

are not the use of process in a manner improper in the regular conduct ofthe proceeding.

Count II is DISMISSED.

C. Count III: Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

The tort of wrongful use of civil proceedings exists where: (1) one initiates,

continues, or procures civil proceedings without probable cause, (2) with a primary

8
The court does not decide whether the Defendants were influenced by any ulterior motive.

8
purpose other than that of securing the proper adjudication of the claim upon which the

proceedings are based, and (3) the proceedings have terminated in favor of the person

against whom they are brought. Pepperell Trust Co. v. Mountain Heir Fin. Corp., 1998

ME 46, ~ 15,708 A.2d 651, 656. (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS§ 674

(1977)).

Nadeau alleges that Haenn's refusal to obey the court orders and his refusal to

release the frozen trust accounts constitutes the continuation of the civil proceedings

without probable cause and with a primary purpose other than that of securing the proper

adjudication of the claim.

The termination of the Bank's proceeding in the York District Court occurred

when the Bank was defaulted and when the District Court determined that the Bank had

no interest in the Nadeau trust accounts and ordered that the funds be turned over

immediately to Nadeau. Even though the Bank had no right to the trust accounts, the

Bank initiated the civil lawsuit to collect on the commercial loan it made to Nadeau's law

firm. This does not establish wrongful use of civil proceedings as the Bank had the right

to pursue a collection action against Nadeau & Associates. Count III is DISMISSED.

D. Count IV: Negligence

As Plaintiff concedes that Maine law does not recognize that an attorney owes

any specific duty or duties to the opposing party or that party's attorney. Therefore,

Count IV is DISMISSED.

E. Count V: Intentional Interference with Advantageous Relations

"[I]f a person by fraud or intimidation procures the breach of a contract that

would have continued but for such wrongful interference, that person can be liable in

9
'

damages for such tortious interference." Pombriant v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Main~,

562 A.2d 656, 659 (Me. 1989). Tortious interference with a prospective economic \

advantage requires a plaintiff to prove: (1) that a valid contract or prospective economic

advantage existed; (2) that the defendant interfered with that contract or advantage

through fraud or intimidation; and (3) that such interference proximately caused damages.

Currie v. Indus. Sec., Inc., 2007 ME 12, ,-r31, 915 A.2d 400,408 (citations omitted). The

"advantageous relations" with which the Defendants allegedly interfered were "valid

contracts and relationships [Nadeau had] with clients of his law firm." (Pl.'s Compl. ,-r

51.)

Nadeau asserts that the "unlawful seizing and retaining" of the trust account

funds, and Haenn's "false claims to the Court that [the Bank] had the legal right to freeze

those accounts" is equivalent to fraud. The freezing of the accounts is not a

misrepresentation; it is an act. The arguments a lawyer makes to a court, no matter how

mistaken, are not fraud. The assertion by itself is insufficient as a matter of law to

support a finding of interference by fraud. Rutlandv. Mullen, 2002 ME 98, ,-r1s, 798 A.

2d 1104, 1111. However, once the Bank was ordered by the court to release the funds,

Plaintiff alleges that the Bank continued to fraudulently and coercively hold the accounts.

Plaintiff asserts that the retention of the trust fund accounts "caused substantial financial

harm to Plaintiff, individually, and to Nadeau Law, as well as to the Plaintiffs clients"

(Pl.'s Compl. ,-r 17.) Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Nadeau

alleges facts sufficient to make out a claim of intentional interference with advantageous

relations. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Vis DENIED.

10
F. Count VI: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

To establish a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must

show that (1) "the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress

or was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from the defendant's

conduct"; (2) "the conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible

bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized

community"; (3) "the actions ofthe defendant caused the plaintiff's emotional distress";

and ( 4) "the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable

person could be expected to endure it." Lyman v. Huber, 2010 ME 139, 'j['j[16, 21-23, 10

A. 3d 707 (alterations omitted).

Nadeau asserts that by freezing and retaining the client trust accounts, refusing to

release the funds upon repeated demand, and openly mocking Plaintiff, Defendants

displayed conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of

decency. It is unlikely that the Defendants, as attorneys and a bank, were unfamiliar with

the structure of client trust accounts prior to the freezing of the account. Yet, even were

the Defendants unaware at the time the accounts were frozen that the client trust accounts

did not hold Plaintiff's property, Plaintiff asserts that once the court found that the

accounts were the property of Plaintiff's clients and ordered the release of the accounts,

Defendants continued to hold the accounts. (Pl.'s Compl. 'if 14.) Plaintiff contends that the

retention of the accounts with knowledge of the damage it would cause Plaintiff's career

and reputation was extreme and outrageous behavior that caused Plaintiff severe

emotional distress. (Pl.'s Compl. 'j['j[ 19, 56.) Viewing the facts in the light most favorable

11
to the Plaintiff, Nadeau alleges facts sufficient to make out a claim of intentional

infliction of emotional distress. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count VI is DENIED.

G. Count VII: Consumer Protection/ Unfair Trade Violations

Defendants claim that Plaintiff fails to identify a cognizable cause of action.

Defendants point to the title, which uses the phrase "unfair trade violations." If Plaintiff

intended to invoke Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act, 5 M.R.S.A. §205-A et seq., he

lacks standing under the Act. The Act in part states that "Unfair methods of competition

and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are

declared unlawful." 5 M.R.S.A. §207. Any person "who purchases or leases goods,

services or property, real or personal, primarily for personal, family or household

purposes ... .",!d. at §213, may bring a private action for violations of this statute;

neither Nadeau & Associates nor Nadeau are persons or consumers within the meaning of

the statute. Count VII is DISMISSED.

The entry is:

The motions to dismiss counts I, II, III, IV and VII of the complaint are

GRANTED.

The motions to dismiss counts V and VI of the complaint are DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference

pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

DATE: June 12,2013

Justice, Superior Court

Plaintiff-Michael Waxman Esq
Defendant Lambert Coffin-John Whitman Esq
Defendant Haenn-Peter DeTroy Esq

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10810303. Public record. Not legal advice.