20 Thames Street LLC v. Ocean State Job Lot of Maine 2017 LLC
2021 ME 33
| Me. | 2021Background
- 20 Thames (landlord) leased commercial premises to Ocean State (tenant); lease contained a Section 3 prohibition on storing trailers on the premises longer than overnight and other provisions (Sections 9, 27, 29).
- April 25, 2018: 20 Thames sent a Notice of Default listing four alleged defaults (including failure to execute estoppel/SNDA and alleged Section 3 trailer parking violations) and advised that Section 29 allowed immediate termination; tenant refused to vacate.
- May 2018: 20 Thames filed a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action; after a three-day trial the District Court entered judgment for Ocean State; the Superior Court affirmed on the merits (with further appeals resolving attorney-fee issues).
- September 25, 2019: 20 Thames sent a new termination notice asserting ongoing Section 3 trailer-parking violations and, after refusal to surrender, filed a second FED action (Oct. 2019) based on the continuing trailer conduct.
- Ocean State moved to dismiss the 2019 action on res judicata grounds (claim and issue preclusion); the District Court dismissed on claim-preclusion grounds and the Superior Court affirmed.
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: reversed the dismissal, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the 2019 complaint—viewed in the plaintiff’s favor—could state a new claim based on ongoing Section 3 conduct and that claim preclusion was not properly applied on the record before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2019 FED is barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) | The Section 3 trailer-based termination in 2019 could not have been litigated in 2018 because the 2018 termination relied on Section 29; Section 3 termination is a distinct or subsequently accruing ground | The 2019 claim arises from the same nucleus of operative facts alleged in 2018 (trailer issue was raised) and so might have been litigated earlier | Reversed dismissal: on a motion to dismiss the complaint must be viewed in plaintiff’s favor; the 2019 allegations could support a new, independently actionable termination under Section 3, so claim preclusion cannot be resolved in defendant’s favor on this record; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether issue preclusion prevents relitigation of the trailer issue | (Implicit) Issue preclusion not applicable because the trailer issue was not actually litigated/decided in the 2018 action | Ocean State: trailer issue was raised and defended in 2018 and thus was actually litigated/decided | Majority declined to recharacterize the appeal as primarily an issue-preclusion case and did not apply issue preclusion; concurrence explained issue preclusion also would not apply because it was unclear the issue was actually litigated or decided in the first action |
| Whether a dismissal on res judicata is appropriate in the FED context given the summary nature of FED proceedings | FEDs are summary and narrowly focused; claim-preclusion principles should be applied more narrowly and should not bar later FEDs based on continuing conduct | Res judicata principles generally apply and may bar piecemeal litigation of lease defaults | Court emphasized FEDs’ limited summary character and held that broad, transactional-similarity reasoning is insufficient to bar subsequent FED claims on the record presented; more developed factual findings are required |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Blue Hill v. Leighton, 30 A.3d 848 (2011 ME) (FED actions are summary proceedings limited to immediate possession)
- Sebra v. Wentworth, 990 A.2d 538 (2010 ME) (transactional test for claim preclusion)
- Wilmington Tr. Co. v. Sullivan-Thorne, 81 A.3d 371 (2013 ME) (elements and transactional approach to claim preclusion)
- Saunders v. Tisher, 902 A.2d 830 (2006 ME) (motion-to-dismiss standard; treat complaint allegations as admitted)
- Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Deschaine, 170 A.3d 230 (2017 ME) (purposes of claim preclusion; prevents piecemeal litigation)
- Bureau v. Gendron, 783 A.2d 643 (2001 ME) (limited scope of FED can prevent adjudication of broader claims)
- In re Kaleb D., 769 A.2d 179 (2001 ME) (continuation of similar conduct can constitute new, independently actionable events)
- Storey v. Cello Holdings, L.L.C., 347 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2003) (when accumulated post‑first-action facts can sustain a second action)