The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
LINCOLN, SS. Civil Action
Docket No. AP-2019-03
DAMARISCOTTA RENTALS, )
LLC )
Plaintiff/ Appellant, )
)
)
V. ) ORDER ON APPEAL
)
)
ELLEN BARTOW-GILLIES & )
ELISE HARTILL, )
Defendants/Appellees. )
The Plaintiff appeals from a decision of the District Court (Raimondi, J.) entering
judgment for the Defendants on competing Statements of Claim made after an
evidentiary hearing on September 18, 2019.
When the Superior Court considers appeals from District Court, the court must
apply the same standards of review that are applied on appeals to the Law Court:
findings of fact are reviewed for clear error; discretionary issues are reviewed for abuse
of discretion; and questions of law are reviewed de nova.
The Appellant first argues that the District Court erred as a matter of law by
applying the provisions of 14 M.R.S. § 6021(6) to this case. To preserve an issue for
appeal, the party seeking review must first present the issue to the trial court in a timely
fashion. Brown v. Tm.un of Starks, 2015 ME 47, Sf 6, 114 A.3d 1003. Otherwise, the issue is
deemed waived. Id.; see Foster v. Oral Surgery Assocs., P.A., 2008 ME 21, Sf 22, 940 A.2d
1102 ("An issue raised for the first time on appeal is not properly preserved for appellate
review."). The legal argument that§ 6021(6) does not apply in this case was not raised to
the District Court and is therefore waived.
The Appellant next argues that the District Court erred in making a finding of fact
that the elements required to be found to find a breach of the warranty of habitability
under§ 6021(6) had been proven. In reviewing the record, this court finds that there was
sufficient evidence presented to support a finding that the Appellant violated the
warranty of habitability under§ 6021(6)(B). The Appellees testimony, supported by their
temperature log, was more than sufficient to support the District Court's finding.
The Appellant next argues that the Appellee' s Statement of Claim should have
been dismissed because it did not comply with the pleading requirements of 14 M.R.S. §
6021(3). This issue was not raised before the District Court and was therefore waived.
However, if the issue had been properly preserved, it is without merit because the plain
language of§ 6021(3) applies only to "Complaints" and is not applicable to Statements of
Claim filed in small claims proceedings.
1
Having been unsuccessful with its arguments on liability, the Appellant's
arguments on damages are therefore without merit. The District Court made no error of
law in its award of damages and the damages award were adequately supported by
evidence on the record.
For the reasons stated above, and after oral argument, review of the trial court
record, and the briefs of the parties, the court finds that the District Court made no clear
error of fact or errors of law.
The decision of the District Court is therefore AFFIRMED.
The Appellees have moved for attorney fees, arguing that this appeal was
frivolous. Though unsuccessful, the court does not find this appeal {rivolous and the
motion is therefore DENIED. ·
Dated: March 2, 2020
JUSTICE, MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
:',,..i B;
2