reading the defendant's motion to dismiss as a motion for joinder
How later courts described this case
- reading the defendant's motion to dismiss as a motion for joinder
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. RE-14-36
MICHAEL T. EVERLY,
Plaintiff,
v. DECISION AND ORDER ON
MOTION TO DISMISS
CLYDE A. FOWLER, JR.,
Defendant,
and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. as
nominee forT AYLOR, BEAN &
WHITTAKER MORTGAGE CORP.,
et al.
Parties in Interest.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Clyde A. Fowler's motion to dismiss
for failure to join indispensible parties under M.R Civ. P. 12(b)(7). Plaintiff Michael
Everly brought an action alleging four counts against Defendant Fowler: Count I:
Nuisance; Count II: Declaratory Judgment; Count III: Injunction; and Count IV:
Easement by Prescription.
BACKGROUND
The Complaint, taken as true, sets forth the following facts. Plaintiff sues
Defendant Fowler for violating Plaintiff's express easement to use a certain Lot# 3 of a
subdivision known as Tobey's Belgrade Lakes Development. In this subdivision, there
are approximately 133 lots, and 56 lot owners. Some, but not all, of the lots in the
subdivision are on the shore of Long Pond.
1
Plaintiff owns Lot# 81 and Lot# 8:2, >vhich are back lots and not on the shore.
Defendant Fowler owns Lot# 1:20 and Lot# 3 (to which Plaintiff purportedly has
easement rights). Lot# 3 is on the shore of Long Pond, but Lot# 120 is not.
Plaintiff's deed ostensibly shows the existence an easement: "Also conveyed
hereby is a right-of-way over Third Street and Lake Shore Drive to Lot #3-Beach Lot,
and the right to the use of said Lot #3- Beach Lot, for Beach purposes at your own risk."
Importantly, it seems that all back lots in the subdivision were sold with this easement.
Complaint~ 8. In fact, advertising materials for the development indicate that buyers will
have easement rights to Lot# 3.
Defendant Fowler's deed to Lot# 3 recognizes the existence of Plaintiff's
easement. It reads,
Excepting from this conveyance all rights of way and all other rights
conveyed by the said Tobey Lumber Company herein prior to this date,
whether the deeds given by said Tobey Lumber Company have been
recorded in the ... Registry of Deeds or not and reserving from this
conveyance to said Tobey Lumber Company, its successors or
assigns, ... the right to the use, in common with others, of Lot #3(three) as
delineated on said Plan for beach purposes.
Id. ~ 30.
When Defendant Fowler purchased Lot# 3, he allegedly cleared the lot of trees,
excavated thirty percent of the lot, excavated pavement that went to the water, instilled a
fence across the right of way, placed a boulder in the right of way, employed a dog to
discourage use of the right of way, played loud music when Lot owners came to use the
right of way, and performed other actions that upset the Plaintiff's prior unencumbered
use of Lot# 3 for boating and swimming.
2
Plaintiff sues to enforce his express rights and his prescriptive rights to Lot# 3.
Plaintiff specifically prays that Defendant Fowler be enjoined from interfering vvith
Plaintiff's rights to Lot# 3 and to deconstruct any structures that he has erected. In
addition, Plaintiff sues for nuisance damages. In the instant motion, Defendant Fowler
moves to dismiss for failure to join all other subdivision lot owners as neGessary parties
(hereinafter referred to as "the 56 Additional Lot Owners").
DISCUSSION
1. Joinder
a. Rule 19
Rule 19(a) sets the standard as to what persons are "needed for just adjudication"
and must be joined in the action. Rule 19(a) reads:
(a) Persons to Be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service
of process shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person's
absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties,
or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and
is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that
interest, or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a
substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent
obligations by reason of the claimed interest. If the person has not been so
joined, the court shall order that the person be made a party.
As the language of the Rule makes clear, joinder is required in circumstances where the
absence of unnamed parties vvould prevent a judgment from fully adjudicating the
underlying dispute, expose those who are already parties to multiple or inconsistent
obligations, or prejudice the interests of absent parties. See Larrabee v. Town of Knox,
2000 ME 15, ~~ 7-9, 744 A.2d 544. Furthermore, joinder "protects unjoined but
interested parties by assuring that their interests will not be prejudiced without their
3
participation and it protects active parties by assuring that issues will not have to be
relitigated." Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB v. Gile, 2001 ME 120, ~ 14,777 A.2d 275.
b. Applicable Case Law
The Court finds no Law Court case that has explicitly addressed whether all
persons who hold an easement over a servient parcel must be joined as necessary parties
in a suit by one of them to enforce that easement. The Court reviewed the relevant case
law on this issue, and ultimately concludes that the 56 Additional Lot Owners are not
necessary parties, and need not be joined.
To begin, the Court examines a case most similar to the case at bar- Sleeper v.
Loring. In Sleeper, the plaintiffs were back lot owners in a subdivision, and they owned
an express easement over a certain lot 40A, which easement "[ran] to the shore" of a lake.
The plaintiffs built a dock on lot 40A, but the town's code enforcement officer ordered
the dock removed. The plaintiffs then sued seeking declaratory judgment as to the scope
of their rights to the easement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the
defendant on the issue of whether the plaintiffs could maintain a dock on lot 40A. Sleeper
v. Loring, 2012 Me. Super. LEXIS 57 (Me. Super. Ct., May 15, 2012). On appeal, the
Law Court reversed the grant of summary judgment, and, sua sponte, remanded the case
to the trial court to decide whether to join absent persons. 2013 ¥E 112, '22. The Law
Court's remand instmctions were as follows:
[B]ecause there are other back lot owners within the ... subdivision with an
easement over lot 40A and there may be other fee owners of lot 40A who
are not parties to these proceedings and whose interests may be prejudiced
by the court's findings on remand, the court should determine whether
additional parties exist who must be joined to this action pursuant to M.R.
Civ. P. 19(a), and should so order.
4
!d.~ :2:2. On remand, Justice Cole of the Superior Court found that all necessary persons
\vere already parties to the action. Sleeper v. Loring, CUMSC-AP-1 0-:20 (Me. Super. Ct.,
Cum. Cnty., Sept. :29, :2014). First, the court noted that no other known parties claim a fee
interest lot 40A. In addition, despite the fact that 60 lot owners had an easement over lot
40A, those already parties had the strongest interest in litigating the issue of the scope of
the easement. !d. at 1. As to the 60 lot owners who had an easement, it would have been
administratively burdensome to require the existing parties to determine the record owner
of each lot, including mortgagees holding title, and contact each of them regarding
joinder. !d. at 3. Furthermore, the court deemed that a decision as to whether a dock is
within the scope of the easement does not prejudice those absent owners' interests in lot
40A. Id. at 4. Still further, no other persons sought to intervene in the matter despite the
four years of litigation. Id. at 1-2. Last, the court found authority in Sanseverino v.
Gregor, 2011 ME 8, 10 A.3d 375, which supported his conclusion that no joinder was
necessary.
In Sanseverino, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against a defendant who cut timber
on a parcel in violation of a restrictive covenant. 2011 ME 8, ~ 1. The covenant limited
the use of the parcel to "single family residential purposes" and explicitly disallowed
"commercial or business activity." The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under
Rule 12(b)(7) on account of the plaintiffs' failure to join absent lot owners who were
entitled to enforce the restrictive covenant. The trial court denied the motion, enjoined the
timber cutting operations, and the defendant appealed. The defendant argued that the
court's ruling in the case could affect the interests of absent lot owners arising from their
deeded restrictive covenants. The Law Court disagreed, noting that the absent lot owners
5
were not directly interested in the litigation, that their ability to enforce the restrictive
covenant in the future would not be prejudiced thereby, and that the defendant would not
be exposed to multiple or inconsistent obligations for its present logging activities. Id. ~
8. Therefore, the court held that the persons entitled to enforce the restrictive covenant
are not necessary parties to an action brought by one of them to enforce the covenant.
Just as the absent lot owners in Sanseverino had a right to enforce the restrictive
covenant to enjoin the defendant's logging operations, so do the 56 Additional Lot
Owners have a right to enjoin Defendant Fowler from interfering with their access to Lot
#3. Thus, like Sanseverino, the mere possibility that the 56 Additional Lot Owners have
the ability to enforce the easement does not necessarily require that they be joined in this
action. Plaintiff Everly's suit will address the Defendant's interference with the
commonly held easement over Lot #3. Further, the 56 Additional Lot Owners will not be
foreclosed from enforcing their easement rights in the future should Defendant Fowler, or
anyone else, interfere with access to Lot #3 (if an easement is found to exist). Therefore,
as Sanseverino, the case at bar adjudicates the Plaintiff's grievances against the
Defendant's interfering conduct, and can be resolved without needing to join all other
easement holders.
Similarly, the Law Court in Muther v. Broad Cove Shore Association, 2009 ME
37, 968 A.2d 539, found it unnecessary to join absent persons to the action, even though
the absentees held easement rights in the subject property. In that case, the plaintiffs who
owned a servient parcel sued their neighbors to clarify the scope of certain easements
over their land. They sued two groups of neighbors. One defendant-group was the
homeowners association (HOA), which held an easement over the plaintiff's property for
6
the benefit of its members. The other defendant-group ;vas comprised of tvvo HOA
members who owned certain "J-Lots," and who consequently had individually deeded
rights to the easement apart from rights incident to their membership in the HOA.
Eighteen other "J-Lot" owners were not initially made parties to the suit. Nluther v. Broad
Cove Shore Ass'n, 2007 Me. Super. LEXIS 185, * 2. All parties settled the case before
trial, but the HOA nevertheless appealed the settlement. On appeal, the HOA argued that
the settlement was "unworkable for want of necessary parties," namely the eighteen
unnamed J-Lot owners. Id. ~ 9. The Law Court disagreed, noting that the settlement
agreement "is binding only upon the individually named [J-Lot] parties and [HOA]
members," and concluding that the settlement fully adjudicated the dispute before the
court. Id. In addition, the Law Court offered, "the resulting judgment does not impair the
ability of unnamed individuals [(presumably the eighteen J-Lot owners)] to enforce rights
that are not derived from Association membership." Id.
Fundamentally, the Law Court in Muthe; decided not to upset the parties'
settlement agreement for lack of necessary parties. In so deciding, the court rejected the
argument that the non-party J-Lot owners, who had easement rights to the property at
issue, were necessary parties in the case. This Court finds the Law Court's holding
applicable here, where the absent parties purportedly own easement rights which are co-
extensive with Plaintiff Everly's easement rights. Accordingly, this Court denies
Defendant Fowler's motion to dismiss for failure to join necessary parties.
7
c. Distinguishable Case Law
The Court further finds that Plaintiff Everly's action is sufficiently different from
two cases, explored below, in which the Law Court decided that absent parties who held
ownership interests in the property at issue were necessary parties under Rule 19.
First, in Larrabee v. Town of Knox, 2000 ME 15, ~~ 7-9, the plaintiff sued the
town for inverse condemnation of her property, of which she was a life tenant. Her sons
had both fee interests and remainder interests in the property. The Lavv Court held that
her sons were necessary parties. The Court declared, "joining those with interests in the
property prevents multiple or inconsistent obligations on the part of the
defendant, ... which is one of the situations that Rule 19 seeks to avoid." ld. ~~ 7-9. In
their absence, "the Town may be vulnerable to incurring multiple obligations." !d.~ 8.
Second, in Gauthier v. Gerrish, 2015 ME 60, two women, Shirley and Julie, were
remainder beneficiaries of a trust. The settlor died, and a dispute arose between the
settlor's widow and Shirl~y. Shirley filed suit against the trustee of the settlor's estate and
against the widow to partition the property. Shirley did not sue Julie, even though Julie
owned a one-quarter interest in the subject property. The Law Court held that unless Julie
was joined in the action, complete relief could not be accorded among those already
parties because Shirley sought a sale of the entire property, even though Julie's interest
was absent from her action. !d.~ 12. Furthermore, the court noted, a sale of the entire
property and division of the proceeds could, in Julie's absence, impair her ability to
protect her interest or subject the parties to a risk of future litigation. ld.
In contrast to the absent persons in Larrabee and Gauthier who had ownership
interests in the property sub judice, the absent 56 Additional Lot Owners in this case have
8
an easement interest. The rights attendant to an easement are different than those
attendant to fee simple, and only give the holder the right to use and enforce the
easement. This difference is sufficient to lead the Court to conclude that Larrabee and
Gauthier do not control, and, instead the Court is persuaded to follow Sanseverino and
Muther, in which cases the Lavv Court found joinder inappropriate when the absent
parties merely held rights to enforce restrictive covenants and easements. The Court finds
that this lawsuit can fully and fairly be determined between Plaintiff Everly and
Defendant Fowler. Moreover, the parties here will not be exposed to multiple or
inconsistent litigation because this litigation will determine finally whether the Plaintiff
(and the 56 Additional Lot Owners) has an easement and also the scope of that easement.
Finally, looking forward, the lawsuit at bar does not prejudice the interests of the 56
Additional Lot Owners, who may still enforce their easement rights to Lot #3 should
future disputes arise.
2. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Parties
The Court turns to Defendant's Rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to join
necessary parties. Because this Court concludes that the 56 Additional Lot Owners are
not necessary parties, the Defendant's motion must be denied. In any event, dismissal is
appropriate only when (1) joinder is not "feasible" and (2) when the Court "determine[s]
whether in equity and good conscience whether the action ... should be dismissed." M.R.
Civ. P. 19(b). Here, joining the 56 Additional Lot Owners is probably feasible because
they are subject to service of process. See M.R. Civ. P. 4(d)(l) and (e). Therefore, even if
the 56 Additional Lot Owners were necessary parties, the Court would instead read the
Defendant's motion dismiss as a Rule 19(a) motion for joinder. See Ejstathiou v. Payeur,
9
456 A.2d 891, 892 (Me. 1983) (reading the defendant's motion to dismiss as a motion for
joinder).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendant's motion for to dismiss.
The Court, consistent with Maine precedent, finds that the 56 Additional Lot Owners are
not needed for just adjudication.
The entry is:
1. Defendant Clyde Fowler's M.R. Civ. P. 19 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED
insofar as it is a motion to dismiss. The motion is also DENIED insofar as it
seeks joinder of necessary parties.
2. This Order shall be incorporated into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R.
Civ. P. 79.
Dated: June 18, 2015
y
Justice, Superior Court
10
MICHAEL T EVERLY - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss.
Attorney for: MICHAEL T EVERLY Docket No AUGSC-RE-2014-00036
JAMES E BELLEAU - RETAINED 08/01/2014
TRAFTON MATZEN BELLEAU & FRENETTE
TEN MINOT AVENUE DOCKET RECORD
PO BOX 470
AUBURN ME 04212-0470
vs
CLYDE A FOWLER JR - DEFENDANT
PO BOX 188
GARDINER ME 04345
Attorney for: CLYDE A FOWLER JR
RONALD BOURGET - RETAINED
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD W BOURGET
185 STATE ST
AUGUSTA ME 04330-6407
ERIC J HOOGLUND (DISMISSED) - DEFENDANT
116 LAKESHORE DRIVE
BELGRADE LAKES ME 04918
Attorney for: ERIC J HOOGLUND (DISMISSED)
BRYAN BAXTER WARD - RETAINED
O'DONNELL, LEE, MCCOWAN & PHILLIPS, LLC
112 SILVER STREET
PO BOX 559
WATERVILLE ME 04903-0559
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC - PARTIES IN INTEREST
C/0 CT CORPORATION SYSTEM ONE PORTLAND SQUARE
PORTLAND ME 04101
Attorney for: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
PAULA LEE CHAMBERS - RETAINED
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
28 STATE ST 24TH FLOOR
BOSTON MA 02109
SKOWHEGAN SAVINGS BANK (DISMISSED) - PARTIES IN INTEREST
C/0 WARREN SHAY, CLERK PO BOX 250
SKOWHEGAN ME 04976
Attorney for: SKOWHEGAN SAVINGS BANK (DISMISSED)
WARREN SHAY - RETAINED
PERKINS TOWNSEND SHAY & TALBOT PA
48 COURT STREET
PO BOX 467
SKOWHEGAN ME 04976
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: QUIET TITLE
Filing Date: 08/01/2014
Page 1 of 7 Printed on: 06/19/2015
AUGSC-RE-2014-00036
DOCKET RECORD
Docket Events:
08/01/2014 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 08/01/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
08/01/2014 Party(s): M]CHAEL T EVERLY
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 08/01/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
08/01/2014 CERTIFY/NOTIFICATION - CLERK CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 08/01/2014
PENNY MOORE , ASSISTANT CLERK-E
NOTICE OF LITIGATION
08/15/2014 Party(s): CLYDE A FOWLER JR
SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 08/04/2014
TO BONNIE BROWN FOR DEFT FOWLER
08/15/2014 Party(s): CLYDE A FOWLER JR
SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 08/12/2014
08/27/2014 Party(s): ERIC J HOOGLUND (DISMISSED)
SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS S~RVED ON 08/18/2014
08/27/2014 Party(s): ERIC J HOOGLUND (DISMISSED)
SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 08/26/2014
09/03/2014 Party(s) : MICHAEL T EVERLY
SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON 09/03/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
09/16/2014 Party(s): CLYDE A FOWLER JR
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACK OF RECEIPT OF SUMM/COMP SERVED ON 09/08/2014
ACCEPTED BY RON BOURGET FOR DEFT CLYDE FOWLER JR (AMENDED COMPLAINT)
09/16/2014 Party(s): CLYDE A FOWLER JR
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACK OF RECEIPT OF SUMM/COMP FILED ON 09/11/2014
09/16/2014 Party(s): SKOWHEGAN SAVINGS BANK (DISMISSED)
SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 09/05/2014
09/16/2014 Party(s) : SKOWHEGAN SAVINGS BANK (DISMISSED)
SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 09/16/2014
09/16/2014 Party(s): ERIC J HOOGLUND (DISMISSED)
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACK OF RECEIPT OF SUMM/COMP SERVED ON 09/10/2014
ACCEPTED BY BRYAN WARD FOR DEFT HOOGLUND (AMENDED COMPLAINT)
09/16/2014 Party(s) : ERIC J HOOGLUND (DISMISSED)
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACK OF RECEIPT OF SUMM/COMP FILED ON 09/15/2014
09/17/2014 Party(s): MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 09/09/2014
TO CT CORPORATION SYSTEMS FOR PII MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGIS SYSTEM
09/17/2014 Party(s): MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
Page 2 of 7 Printed on: 06/19/2015
AUGSC-RE-2014-00036
DOCKET RECORD
SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 09/17/2014
09/25/2014 Party(s): CLYDE A FOWLER JR
MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS FILED WITH AFFIDAVIT ON 09/25/2014
Defendant's Attorney: RONALD ~OURGET
W/ AFFIDAVIT OF CLYDE A FOWLER JR, MEMORANDUM OR LAW
09/29/2014 Party(s): SKOWHEGAN SAVINGS BANK (DISMISSED)
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER TO AMENDED PLEADING FILED ON 09/26/2014
09/29/2014 Party(s): SKOWHEGAN SAVINGS BANK (DISMISSED)
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 09/26/2014
10/01/2014 Party(s) : ERIC J HOOGLUND (DISMISSED)
OTHER FILING - ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED ON 09/30/2014
Defendant's Attorney: BRYAN BAXTER WARD
10/01/2014 Party(s): ERIC J HOOGLUND (DISMISSED)
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 09/30/2014
Defendant's Attorney: BRYAN BAXTER WARD
10/01/2014 Party(s): ERIC J HOOGLUND (DISMISSED)
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FILED ON 09/30/2014
Defendant's. Attorney: BRYAN BAXTER WARD
10/02/2014 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION. - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 10/01/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
PLTF'S CONSENTED-TO MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
10/03/2014 Party(s) : MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 10/02/2014
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PLTF SHALL FILE
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS NO LATER THAN 10 DAYS AFTER THE PARTIES COMPLETE
MEDIATION.
10/03/2014 Party(s): CLYDE A FOWLER JR
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 09/25/2014
Defendant's Attorney: RONALD BOURGET
10/20/2014 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 10/07/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
10/21/2014 Party(s) : MICHAEL T EVERLY
ADR - NOTICE OF ADR PROCESS/NEUTRAL FILED ON 10/15/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
MEDIATION 11/18/14 WITH JACK CLIFFORD
10/28/2014 Party(s): MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
OTHER FILING - ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED ON 10/27/2014
Page 3 of 7 Printed on: 06/19/2015
AUGSC-RE-2014-00036
DOCKET RECORD
10/28/2014 Party(s): MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 10/27/2014
10/28/2014 Party(s): MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 10/27/2014
TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
11/04/2014 ADR - NOTICE OF ADR PROCESS/NEUTRAL FILED ON 10/31/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
MEDIATION WITH JACK CLIFFORD ON 12/15/14.
11/05/2014 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 10/31/2014
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PLTF SHALL FILE
OPPOSITION TO DEFT HOOGLUND'S MOTION TO DISMISS NO LATER THAN 10 DAYS AFTER THE PARTIES
COMPLETE MEDIATION.
11/05/2014 ORDER - SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED ON 11/05/2014
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL
11/05/2014 DISCOVERY FILING - DISCOVERY DEADLINE ENTERED ON 07/05/2015
11/05/2014 ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ON 11/05/2014
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
11/12/2014 Party(s): MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 11/10/2014
11/12/2014 Party(s): MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
MOTION - MOTION TO JOIN FILED ON 11/10/2014
MOTION TO JOIN DEFT HOOGUND'S MOTION TO DISMISS
11/13/2014 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 11/13/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
PLTF'S CONSENTED-TO MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PII'S MOTION TO
DISMISS
11/14/2014 Party(s) : MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 11/13/2014
DANIEL I BILLINGS , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PLTF'S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS DUE 30 DAYS AFTER PARTIES COMPLETE MEDIATION
12/03/2014 Party(s): MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 11/24/2014
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PARTIES-IN-
INTEREST SHALL FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING BY 11/6/14.
Page 4 of 7 Printed on: 06/19/2015
AUGSC-RE-2014-00036
DOCKET RECORD
12/18/2014 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER FILED ON 12/l8/2014
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
12/18/2014 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER PARTIALLY RESOLVED ON 12/15/2014
PLTF WILL DISMISS DEFT HOOGLUND W/0 PREJUDICE. PLTF AND DEFT
FOWLER AGREE TO RECONVENE MEDIATION NOT LATER THAN 1/31/15
12/18/2014 Party(s): MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
MOTION - MOTION TO JOIN OTHER DECISION ON 12/16/2014
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
NO ACTION NEEDED
12/29/2014 Party(s) : MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 12/19/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
CONSENTED TO MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION
12/29/2014 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS FILED ON 12/19/2014
CONSENTED TO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT ERIC HOOGLUND ONLY
12/29/2014 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION ALTER/AMEND ORDER/JUDG FILED ON 12/19/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
CONSENTED TO MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
12/30/2014 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 12/19/2014
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
PLTF'S CONSENTED TO, TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFT FOWLER'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PII
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGIS SYSTEM'S MOTION TO DISMISS
01/07/2015 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER ENTERED ON 12/28/2014
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL
01/07/2015 ORDER - ORDER TO FILE DOCKET ENTRIES ENTERED ON 12/28/2014
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL AS TO DEFT ERIC HOOGLUND
ONLY. DOCKET ENTRIES DUE IN 30 DAYS.
01/09/2015 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED ON 01/07/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, AGAINST DEFT HOOGLUND
01/09/2015 Party(s) : ERIC J HOOGLUND (DISMISSED)
FINDING - PARTIAL DISMISS W/0 PREJUDICE ENTERED ON 01/07/2015
Page 5 of 7 Printed on: 06/19/2015
AUGSC-RE-2014-00036
DOCKET RECORD
01/09/2015 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION ALTER/AMEND ORDER/JUDG GRANTED ON 01/07/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL RE: JOINDER OF
PARTIES/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS, DESIGNATE EXPERTS.
01/09/2015 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 01/07/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PLTF'S
OPPOSITION DUE NO LATER THAN 20 DAYS AFTER PARTIES COMPLETE MEDIATION.
01/20/2015 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER FILED ON 01/16/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
01/20/2015 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER UNRESOLVED ON 01/16/2015
01/29/2015 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER ENTERED ON 01/24/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL
02/13/2015 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 01/07/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PLTF'S
OPPOSITION DUE NO LATER THAN 20 DAYS AFTER PARTIES COMPLETE RECONVENED MEDIATION
02/13/2015 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 02/11/2015
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
PLTF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
04/01/2015 Party(s) : MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION ALTER/AMEND ORDER/JUDG FILED ON 03/25/2015
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
PLTF'S CONSENTED-TO MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
04/07/2015 Party(s): MICHAEL T EVERLY
MOTION - MOTION ALTER/AMEND ORDER/JUDG GRANTED ON 04/01/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL JOINDER OF
PARTIES/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 6/1/15. EXPERT WITNESSES: PLTF 6/1/15, DEFT 8/1/15.
DISCOVERY 10/1/15.
04/07/2015 DISCOVERY FILING - DISCOVERY DEADLINE ENTERED ON 10/01/2015
04/14/2015 HEARING - MOTION TO DISMISS SCHEDULED FOR 06/03/2015 at 10:30 a.m. in Room No. 4
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
04/14/2015 HEARING - MOTION TO DISMISS NOTICE SENT ON 04/14/2015
05/15/2015 Party(s) : SKOWHEGAN SAVINGS BANK (DISMISSED)
Page 6 of 7 Printed on: 06/19/2015
AUGSC-RE-2014-00036
DOCKET RECORD
MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS FILED ON 05/11/2015
CONSENTED TO MOTION TO DISMISS ONLY PII SKOWHEGAN SAVINGS BANK
05/19/2015 Party{s): MICHAEL T EVERLY,CLYDE A FOWLER JR
MOTION - MOTION ALTER/AMEND ORDER/JUDG FILED ON 05/19/2015
Defendant's Attorney: RONALD BOURGET
Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES E BELLEAU
JOINT MOTION TO STAY AND/OR AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
05/19/2015 Party{s): SKOWHEGAN SAVINGS BANK (DISMISSED)
MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED ON 05/19/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PII SKOWHEGAN
SAVINGS BANK IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
05/26/2015 Party{s): MICHAEL T EVERLY,CLYDE A FOWLER JR
MOTION - MOTION ALTER/AMEND ORDER/JUDG GRANTED ON 05/21/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL CURRENT
SCHEDULING ORDER STAYED UNTIL COURT RULES ON DEFT FOWLER'S MOTION TO DISMISS. THE PARTIES
WILL THEN EITHER SUBMIT AN AGREED UPON REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER OR REQUEST CONFERENCE WITH
THE COURT.
06/03/2015 HEARING - MOTION TO DISMISS HELD ON 06/03/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
Defendant's Attorney: RONALD BOURGET
ALSO PRESENT: PAULA-LEE CHAMBERS, ESQ., MARK FRENETT, ESQ. COURTROOM 5,
10:30:46 TO 11:07:37
06/03/2015 CASE STATUS - DECISION UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 06/03/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
MOTION TO DISMISS
06/19/2015 Party{s): CLYDE A FOWLER JR
MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED ON 06/18/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL DEFT CLYDE
FOWLER'S M.R. CIV. P.19 MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED INSOFAR AS IT IS A MOTION TO DISMISS.
THE MOTION IS ALSO DENIED INSOFAR AS IT SEEKS JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES.
06/19/2015 ORDER - COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 06/18/2015
M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL AND REPOSITORIES DECISION AND ORDER ON
MOTION TO DISMISS
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST:
Clerk
Page 7 of 7 Printed on: 06/19/2015