The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CNILACTION
Docket No. CV-13-142
JAYNE M. SOULES AND DANIEL
BUCK SOULES,
Plaintiffs
ORDER
v. RECEIVED & FILEL'
LISA BOSSE, ANDROSCOGGIN
SUPERIOR COURT
Defendant
Before the court is Plaintiffs Jayne and Daniel Soules' Motion for Summary Judgment on
Defendant Lisa Bosse's Second Amended Counterclaim ("Counterclaim"). The Counterclaim
arose in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint against Defendant and the ensuing court dispute
between the parties over a horse named Knotty. The court held a number of hearings with the
parties regarding the proper way to proceed in regard to Knotty, imposed a preliminary
injunction on December 5, 2013, and ultimately vacated that injunction on January 14, 2014.
Knotty has since died•, but the Counterclaim remains. Defendant's Counterclaim asserts four
counts: Count I is for slander, libel and/ or defamation; Count II is for intentional or negligent
infliction of emotional distress; Count III is for unjust enrichment; and Count N is for malice.'
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The following facts are gathered from Plaintiffs' statement of material facts (S.M.F.),
Defendant's opposing statement (O.S.M.F.), Defendant's additional statement (A.S.M.F.), and
Plaintiffs' reply statement (R.S.M.F.).
In 2012, Plaintiffs arranged to board their horse, Knotty, at Defendant's horse farm.
(S.M.F. <][1; O.S.M.F. <][1.) Subsequently, on April 15, 2013, Plaintiff Jayne Soules signed an
agreement that transferred ownership of Knotty to Defendant. (S.M.F. <J[ 2; O.S.M.F. <J[ 2.)
Defendant drafted the agreement. (S.M.F. <J[ 2; O.S.M.F. <J[ 2.) Pursuant to Plaintiff Jayne Soules'
request, Defendant added right of first refusal language to the contract. (S.M.F. <J[ 3.) The
'Although not explicitly clear, the court presumes that Knotty was euthanized.
'The court notes that malice is not a cause of action. The court infers that Defendant included a malice
count to make it clear that she was seeking punitive damages. As none of Defendant's claims can survive
summary judgment, however, the Defendant is not eligible for punitive damages. As such, the court
dismisses Defendant's malice count.
meaning and intent of the language is disputed by the parties. (S.M.F. 9[ 3; O.S.M.F. 9[ 3.)
Plaintiff Jayne Soules believed that the language meant that Knotty would be returned to
Plaintiffs if Defendant could no longer keep Knotty, whereas Defendant was under the
impression that the language meant that Plaintiffs had a right to re-obtain Knotty prior to the
conveyance of Knotty to a third-party. (S.M.F. <JI 3; O.S.M.F. <JI 3.) It is disputed whether or not
Plaintiffs continued to pay for Knotty's board up until ownership of Knotty transferred to
Defendant. (S.M.F. <JI 4.; O.S.M.F. <JI 4.)
On September 25, 2013, Defendant called Plaintiff Jayne Soules and, along with relaying
additional medical concerns, she stated that Knotty was having trouble getting back up on his
feet from the ground and that she was concerned that he would freeze once the weather turned
cold. (S.M.F. <JI 5; O.S.M.F. 9[ 5.) Defendant also shared with Plaintiff Jayne Soules that she had
decided that Knotty should be euthanized a few days later. (S.M.F. <JI 5; O.S.M.F. <JI 5.) On
September 27th, Plaintiff Jayne Soules asked that Defendant return Knotty to her pursuant to
the April 15th contract. (S.M.F. <JI 6; O.S.M.F. <JI 6.) Without explanation, Defendant refused to
return Knotty to Plaintiffs. (S.M.F. <JI 7; O.S.M.F. <JI 7.)
On September 28, 2013, Plaintiff Daniel Soules proceeded to contact a Lewiston Sun
Journal reporter to state that he felt Knotty's euthanization could be prevented through medical
treatment at Plaintiffs' expense. (S.M.F. <JI 8; O.S.M.F. <JI 8.) While a September 28, 2013 article
from the Sun Journal was attached to Plaintiffs' memorandum of law as Exhibit B, and an
October 11, 2013 Sun Journal article was attached to Plaintiff's reply memorandum as Exhibit A,
neither party cited to the articles in their statements of material facts. The content of the articles
is the basis for the majority of the Counterclaim. Instead, Defendant has presented a series of
statements that appear to attempt to refute the content of the articles. The statements are
presented out of context without excerpts from the articles, but as the parties did not provide
those excerpts the court cannot consider them as facts in this case. The following five assertions
fall into this category:
• Defendant never stated to Plaintiffs that she had "sunk money into Knotty's care
and there was just no other way." (A.S.M.F. 'li 14.)
• It is untrue that there was nothing wrong with Knotty. (A.S.M.F. <JI 15; R.S.M.F. <JI
15.)
• Defendant did not want to kill Knotty. (A.S.M.F. <JI 16; R.S.M.F. <JI 16.)
• It is also untrue that Defendant's horse farm was not a safe location for Knotty.
(A.S.M.F. <JI 17.)
• Defendant did not intend to sell or kill Knotty for horsemeat. (A.S.M.F. <JI 19.)
2
Due to concern that Knotty might be euthanized prior to a court decision on the
enforceability of the right of first refusal provision, Plaintiffs asked that the court issue a
temporary restraining order ("TRO"). (S.M.F. <JI 9; O.S.M.F.<JI 9.) A TRO was issued on October
10, 2013. (S.M.F. <JI 9; O.S.M.F. <JI 9.)
Plaintiffs attached to the Complaint and request for an injunction, an affidavit from
Plaintiff Jayne Soules stating the sole reason she could think of for Defendant refusing to return
Knotty to Plaintiffs was that Defendant must be planning to sell Knotty for horsemeat. (S.M.F. 1
10; O.S.M.F. <JI 10.)
Again, although not referenced in the statement of material facts, the court takes judicial
notice that Dr. Thomas Judd, a veterinarian, was agreed to by the parties and appointed by the
court to evaluate Knotty's condition. Based on Dr. Judd's report that Knotty did not appear to
be terminally ill, the court subsequently granted Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction,
which served to stay the euthanization of Knotty. (S.M.F. <JI 11; O.S.M.F. <JI 11.) The court takes
judicial notice of its December 5, 2013 Order, specifying, among other things, that Plaintiffs
were to pay for Knotty's veterinary care pursuant to the Order. (S.M.F. <JI 11; O.S.M.F. <JI 11.) The
court also takes judicial notice that on January 14, 2014, due to a decline in Knotty's health, the
court vacated the Order.
As a result of the pending litigation and in accordance with the court's stay of Knotty's
euthanization, Defendant was forced to make payments, incur expenses, and spend money on
Knotty's treatment and care, even though she did not feel the payments were appropriate and
necessary and she would not have made the payments if it had been up to her discretion.
(A.S.M.F. <JI 21.)
Finally, although Defendant has claimed severe emotional distress, in her interrogatory
response, Defendant admitted that she had not received medical treatment for emotional
distress. (S.M.F. <JI 13; O.S.M.F. <JI<JI 13; A.S.M.F. <JI 22; R.S.M.F. <JI 22.)
Lastly, Defendant maintains that she loves horses and her business' success is contingent
upon the community perceiving her as a horse lover. (A.S.M.F. <JI 20; R.S.M.F. <JI 20.)
II. Standard of Review
"Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals no issues of material fact in
dispute. A fact is material if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case." Lepage v. Bath
Iron Works Corp., 2006 ME 130, <JI 9, 909 A.2d 629 (citations omitted).
The Law Court has held that "[s]ummary judgment is properly granted if the facts are
not in dispute or, if the defendant has moved for summary judgment, the evidence favoring the
plaintiff is insuffictent to support a verdict for the plaintiff as a matter of law." Curtis v. Porter,
3
2001 ME 158, <[ 7, 784 A.2d 18; see also Houde v. Millett, 2001 ME 183, <[ 11, 787 A.2d 757. If "a
defendant moves for summary judgment, the plaintiff 'must establish a prima facie case for each
element of her cause of action' that is properly challenged in the defendant's motion." Curtis,
2001 ME 158, <[ 8, 784 A.2d 18 (quoting Champagne v. Mid-Maine Med. Ctr., 1998 ME 87, <[ 9, 711
A.2d 842); see also Corey v. Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, 1999 ME 196, <[ 9, 742 A.2d 933.
When considering a Motion for Summary Judgment, this court must admit
uncontroverted facts from the statement of material facts that are properly supported. M.R. Civ.
P. 56(h)(4). This court cannot consider parts of the record that were not properly referenced in a
statement of material facts. See M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4)(emphasis added) ("The court shall have no
independent duty to search or consider any part of the record not specifically referenced in the parties'
separate statement of facts."); see also HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Gabay, 2011 ME 101, <[ 17, 28 A.3d
1158.
III. Discussion
As an initial matter, statements in affidavits asserted as "facts", which were actually
legal argument or conclusions, have been disregarded. See Diversified Foods, Inc. v. First Nat.
Bank of Boston, 605 A.2d 609, 612 (Me. 1992). A number of the assertions made by Defendant are
not supported by factual evidence, but instead rely upon conclusory statements from Defendant
that fail to prove her assertions. For example, Defendant stated that Plaintiffs' statements and
communications were harmful to her reputation, business, and profession, implying she
mistreated Knotty and intended to kill Knotty either without cause or for horsemeat, but
Defendant provided no adequate factual basis for her assertions. (A.S.M.F. <[ 21; Bosse A££. <[
11.) Defendant has not presented sufficient evidence to support her claim that the statements
were harmful, much less "devastating" to her business. (A.S.M.F. <[ 21.) Defendant's statement
that she suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Plaintiffs' actions is also inadequately
supported.• (A.S.M.F. <[ 22.) Furthermore, the majority of paragraph 23 of the additional
statement of material facts consists of legal arguments and conclusions. Statements regarding
whose obligation it was to pay for Knotty's upkeep, or who benefitted from the payments that
were made, are conclusory. Defendant's affidavit, which makes the same legal arguments and
conclusions, does not support the statement as "Conclusions of fact and law do not properly
belong in an affidavit filed in support of a motion for summary judgment." Town of Orient v.
Dwyer, 490 A.2d 660, 662 (Me. 1985).
·See discussion below.
4
a. Defamation
Defendant's Counterclaim alleges a claim for slander, libel or defamation. From
Defendant's Opposition, it appears that Defendant is pursuing a claim for defamation. Plaintiffs
argue that the statements Defendant has excerpted in her Counterclaim do not constitute
defamation.
In Lester v. Powers, the Law Court stated,
Common law defamation consists of:
(a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another;
(b) an unprivileged publication to a third party;
(c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
(d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence
of special harm caused by the publication.
596 A.2d 65, 69 (Me. 1991) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558 (1977)). A statement is
11
defamatory 'if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of
the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him."' Rippett v.
Bemis, 672 A.2d 82 (Me. 1996) (quoting Bakal v. Weare, 583 A.2d 1028, 1029 (Me. 1990)). The Law
Court explained A defamation claim requires a statement-i.e. an assertion of fact, either explicit
II
or implied, and not merely an opinion, provided the opinion does not imply the existence of
undisclosed defamatory facts." Lester, 596 A.2d at 69.
The majority of Defendant's defamation claim cannot survive summary judgment, because
Defendant failed to include the portions of the articles that she contends were defamatory in her
additional statement of material facts. While Defendant's additional statement of material facts
contains a list of statements framed in the negative to oppose claims from the articles, nowhere
in her additional statement of material facts does Defendant include the original content that
she is refuting. Stating that "Ms. Bosse never told the Counterclaim-Defendants that 'she'd sunk
money into Knotty's care and there was just no other way"' is meaningless and does not
advance her defamation claim, unless there is an actual statement of material fact referring to
the original material to explain that the quoted statement was attributed to Defendant.
(A.S.M.F. 9I 15.) Similarly, without a citation to the original statement, stating that "Ms. Bosse
never wanted to kill 'Knotty"', does not show that Plaintiffs asserted as much. The necessary
bases for a defamation claim, the allegedly defamatory statements themselves, are completely
missing from the statement of material facts. The statements also were not introduced through
Plaintiffs' statement of material facts. Furthermore, Defendant never even cited to the articles to
support what she contends the articles implied. (A.S.M.F. 9I 21.) The closest Defendant gets to
actually referencing the statements is when she states "The within statements and
5
communications were harmful to Ms. Bosse's reputation," but she never cites to the statements
or provides what the "within statements" are. (A.S.M.F. 91 21.)
In her Counterclaim, Defendant set forth the following statements from a September 28,
2013 Lewiston Sun-Journal article as defamatory:
• "'Bosse told the Soules that she'd sunk money into Knotty's care and there was just no
other way"';
• '"There's nothing wrong with that horse. They just won't let us take it back. They want
to kill [Knotty]'" (alteration made in the Counterclaim);
• '"I'd like at least to get the horse somewhere safe, while this gets sorted out"';
• The Counterclaim also includes the statement that "Bosse won't honor the contract."
This statement is not directly quoted from the article.
• "'The farm owner told him that he had fallen behind in his boarding payments, which
may have nullified the contract."'
(Def's Countercl. 915.) The Counterclaim also includes the following allegation from an October
11, 2013 article, which was not presented as a quote from the article:
• "That Ms. Bosse intended to sell/kill 'Knotty' for horse meat, by implication that she
intended to maliciously and/ or for profit harm or not adequately care for 'Knotty'."
(Id.) Only Plaintiff Jayne Soules' statement regarding horsemeat is actually discussed in the
statement of material facts. (S.M.F. 91 10.) Plaintiffs mention the horsemeat statement made in
Plaintiff Jayne Soules' affidavit attached to the Complaint. (Id.) The October 11, 2013 article is
not cited to by either party. (Id.; O.S.M.F. 91 10.) Mrs. Soules' statement in her affidavit to the
court was privileged. See Dineen v. Daughan, 381 A.2d 663, 664 (Me. 1978). Defendant cannot
sustain a defamation claim against Plaintiff Jayne Soules on the basis of that statement. The
remainder of the allegedly defamatory statements were not included in the statement of
material facts.
The Law Court has stated that when considering a motion for summary judgment:
we consider only the material facts set forth, and the portions of the record referred to,
in the statements of material facts. In summary judgment practice, the court is neither
required nor permitted to independently search a record to find support for facts offered
by a party. A party's motion for summary judgment may not be granted if that party
fails to properly put the material facts before the court, regardless of the adequacy, or
inadequacy, of the nonmoving party's response.
Gabay, 2011 ME 101, 91 8, 28 A.3d 1158. (citations and quotation marks omitted).
In order to properly analyze Defendant's defamation claim, the court would have to
independently examine the articles for the phrases that were not introduced as facts by either
party. The court is not permitted to do so. See Id. The court shall not analyze the allegedly
defamatory statements contained in the Counterclaim and memoranda, since they were not
6
presented as a part of the statement of material facts. See M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4). Accordingly,
Defendant cannot survive summary judgment on her defamation claim.
b. Intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress
Defendant has also advanced claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress ("liED" and "NIED"), both of which she has failed to properly support in her
opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion.
In order to demonstrate liED, a party must show:
(1) the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was
certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from his conduct; (2) the
conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and
must be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the
actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff's emotional distress; and (4) the emotional
distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe so that no reasonable man could be expected
to endure it.
Vicnire v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 401 A.2d 148, 154 (Me. 1979) (quotations and citations omitted).
In liED cases, the court must determine whether the conduct "'may reasonably be regarded as
so extreme and outrageous to permit recovery .... "' Champagne v. Mid-Maine Med. Ctr., 1998
ME 87, <J[ 16, 711 A.2d 842 (quoting Colford v. Chubb Life Ins. Co. of Am., 687 A.2d 609, 616
(Me.1996)). The Law Court explained that "while the jury must determine whether the
elements of the tort were in fact satisfied, the court must first determine whether, as a matter of
law, the facts alleged are sufficient to satisfy the elements." Id.
In Curtis v. Porter, the Law Court noted that "the universe of those who may be liable in
tort for the negligent infliction of emotional distress is much more limited" than for claims of
liED. 2001 ME 158, <J[ 17, 784 A2d 18 (emphasis in the original). To prove negligent infliction of
emotional distress a plaintiff must demonstrate: "(1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff;
(2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the plaintiff was harmed; and (4) the breach caused the
plaintiff's harm." Id. <J[ 18. The Law Court noted, however, that it is difficult for plaintiffs to
establish duty, since "there is no ... general duty to avoid negligently causing emotional harm
to others." Id. The Law Court has, however,
recognized a duty to act reasonably to avoid emotional harm to others in very limited
circumstances: first, in claims commonly referred to as bystander liability actions; and
second, in circumstances in which a special relationship exists between the actor and the
person emotionally harmed. We have also held that a claim for negligent infliction of
emotional distress may lie when the wrongdoer has committed another tort. However,
as we have recently held, when the separate tort at issue allows a plaintiff to recover for
emotional suffering, the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is usually
subsumed in any award entered on the separate tort.
7
Id. <JI 19. To prevail on a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, a plaintiff must also
show "proof of severe emotional distress." Id. <JI 20.
Setting aside the issue of proof of the elements relating to Plaintiffs' conduct, both of
Defendant's intentional infliction and negligent infliction claims fail because Defendant has not
shown that she suffered emotional distress. Defendant's statement that she suffered severe
emotional distress as a result of Plaintiffs' actions is only supported by her affidavit stating the
same conclusion. (A.S.M.F. <JI 22.) Nowhere, in her additional statement of material facts does
Defendant describe the symptoms or impact of her emotional distress, or provide any factual
evidence of said distress. (A.S.M.F. <JI 22.) Defendant's statement "I have suffered severe
emotional distress as a consequence of the action of the Soules" does not constitute proof that
she has in fact suffered severe emotional distress that is actionable under either an liED or
NIED claim. (Bosse Aff. <JI 12.) Accordingly, Defendant cannot prevail on either her liED or
NIED claims.
c. Unjust enrichment
Defendant has also alleged unjust enrichment. To prevail on a claim for unjust
enrichment, a party must show that "that it conferred a benefit on the other party ... that the
other party had appreciation or knowledge of the benefit ... and ... that the acceptance or
retention of the benefit was under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for it to retain
the benefit without payment of its value." Forrest Associates v. Passamaquoddy Tribe, 2000 ME 195,
<JI 14, 760 A.2d 1041 (quotation marks and citation omitted) (alterations in the original). Unjust
enrichment claims exist when there is no actual contract, but when one party is legally and
morally compelled to pay for value of the benefit. Forrest Associates, 2000 ME 195, <JI 14, 760 A.2d
1041.
In this instance, Defendant cannot sustain a claim for unjust enrichment. Defendant
owned Knotty and was, as a result, responsible for Knotty's care. Defendant argues that she was
forced to keep Knotty alive against her wishes and against Knotty's best interest. While the
court appreciates that Defendant had legitimate concerns about Knotty's long-term well being
and did not wish to sustain Knotty's life, the court cannot say with certainty that waiting for an
additional veterinary opinion prior to euthanasia was adverse to Knotty's best interest.
Although Dr. Judd's findings after examining Knotty were not significantly different than the
two previous veterinary exams, Dr. Judd determined that additional testing was advisable to
ensure a proper diagnosis. He wrote "the absolute best thing to do for Knotty at this point
would be to try treating him for both 'Lyme disease and supplementing Vitamin E' at [Ms.
Bosse's farm]." Accordingly, terminating Knotty's life at that point was ill advised.
8
In light of the court's Order requiring Plaintiffs to be responsible for actual veterinary
costs, Defendant's responsibility extended only to the normal costs of Knotty's upkeep for a
relatively brief period of time. Any benefit that Plaintiffs derived was emotional at best, and not
the type that would be "inequitable for [them] to retain ... without payment of its value."
Forrest Associates, 2000 ME 195, !)[ 14, 760 A.2d 1041.
Had Defendant's financial obligation become burdensome, she could have transferred
ownership of Knotty back to Plaintiffs who would have then assumed Knotty's general
expenses as well as veterinary costs. Accordingly, summary judgment is also granted to
Plaintiffs on Defendant's claim for unjust enrichment.
d. Rule 11 sanctions
Lastly, the court notes that Plaintiffs' counsel, Attorney Webber, has requested Rule 11
sanctions. Defendant's counsel, Attorney Van Dyke, has opposed the request for sanctions and
has suggested that if any party deserves to be sanctioned, it is Attorney Webber. The court
recognizes that the parties were emotionally invested in Knotty and were driven to do what
was in Knotty's best interest for the remainder of his life, that the parties had different opinions
about what was in Knotty's best interest, and that their disagreements became public and
contentious. Nothing counsel has done in this case, however, merits Rule 11 sanctions.
Therefore, the court finds that Rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of
Plaintiffs on Defendant's Counterclaim. Defendant's Counterclaim is dismissed.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to
M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
Dated: •¥PJ
9
JAYNE SOULES - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT
ANDROSCOGGIN, ss.
Attorney for: JAYNE SOULES Docket No AUBSC-CV-2013-00142
CURTIS WEBBER - RETAINED
LINNELL CHOATE & WEBBER LLP
83 PLEASANT STREET DOCKET RECORD
PO BOX 190
AUBURN ME 04212-0190
DANIEL SOULES - PLAINTIFF
Attorney for: DANIEL SOULES
CURTIS WEBBER - RETAINED
LINNELL CHOATE & WEBBER LLP
83 PLEASANT STREET
PO BOX 190
AUBURN ME 04212-0190
vs
LISA BOSSE - DEFENDANT
Attorney for: LISA BOSSE
DAVID J VAN DYKE - RETAINED 10/10/2013
LYNCH & VAN DYKE PA
261 ASH ST
PO BOX 116
LEWISTON ME 04243-0116
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: CONTRACT
Filing Date: 10/09/2013
Docket Events:
10/09/2013 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 10/09/2013
10/09/2013 Party(s): JAYNE SOULES
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 10/09/2013
Plaintiff's Attorney: CURTIS WEBBER
Party(s): DANIEL SOULES
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 10/09/2013
Plaintiff's Attorney: CURTIS WEBBER
10/09/2013 Party(s): JAYNE SOULES,DANIEL SOULES
MOTION - TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER FILED ON 10/09/2013
WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW, DRAFT ORDER, NOTICE OF HEARING
10/10/2013 Party(s): JAYNE SOULES,DANIEL SOULES
MOTION - TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER GRANTED ON 10/10/2013
MARYGAY KENNEDY , JUDGE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
10/10/2013 HEARING - MOTION PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SCHEDULED FOR 10/16/2013 at 01:30 p.m.
10/10/2013 Party(s): LISA BOSSE
Page 1 of 5 Printed on: 03/23/2015