Berry v. Mainestream Fin., 202 A.3d 1195

In 2016 MaineStream sued Dwight Moody to repossess two race cars pledged as collateral; it seized a car called “Outlaw” before the hearing. Berry (Moody’s nephew) testified in that proceeding that he owned Outlaw, but he was not a party. The court found Moody owned Outlaw and entered judgment in MaineStream’s favor.
In 2017 Berry sued MaineStream under 14 M.R.S. § 7071(1) seeking return of a 2016 Chevrolet Camaro he says MaineStream wrongfully seized, alleging MaineStream misidentified his vehicle while enforcing its security interest in Moody’s cars (alleged pledges were 2012 and 2013 Impalas).
MaineStream moved for summary judgment asserting res judicata (collateral estoppel and claim preclusion) based on the 2016 judgment, arguing that the prior adjudication determined ownership and therefore Berry cannot relitigate ownership of the seized car.
The District Court granted summary judgment for MaineStream in a terse order; Berry appealed.
On appeal the court viewed MaineStream’s factual statements in the light most favorable to Berry but noted Berry had admitted MaineStream’s statements and offered none of his own.
The appellate court vacated and remanded because the summary judgment record did not establish that the 2016 adjudicated vehicle (identified only as “Outlaw”) is the same vehicle as the 2016 Chevrolet Camaro Berry seeks to recover, nor that ownership of that Camaro was litigated in 2016.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Berry’s claim is barred by collateral estoppel (issue preclusion)	Berry asserts he owns the 2016 Camaro and seeks its return	MaineStream says the 2016 judgment adjudicated ownership (Outlaw) and Berry is bound	Not established — record fails to show the Camaro is the same vehicle adjudicated in 2016, so collateral estoppel not shown
Whether claim preclusion bars Berry’s suit	Berry contends his claim targets a different vehicle not litigated in 2016	MaineStream contends the prior suit encompassed ownership of the seized car so the claim was or could have been litigated	Not established — MaineStream did not prove ownership of this Camaro was or could have been litigated in 2016
Whether summary judgment was proper given the record	Berry argues factual dispute as to identity/ownership of the car prevents summary judgment	MaineStream argues undisputed prior judgment supports summary judgment as a matter of law	Summary judgment improper — MaineStream’s statement of material facts did not identify the cars sufficiently to support res judicata as a matter of law
Whether Berry was bound by the 2016 judgment despite not being a party	Berry notes he was not a party and did not have a full opportunity to litigate	MaineStream suggests privity or that Berry could have intervened to protect his interest	Court did not decide privity/intervention because res judicata failed on the separate ground that identity/issue was not established

Avis Rent a Car Sys., LLC v. Burrill, 187 A.3d 583 (Me. 2018) (summary judgment standard and construction of facts for non-prevailing party)
Canney v. Strathglass Holdings, LLC, 159 A.3d 330 (Me. 2017) (de novo review of summary judgment and standard for granting)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Gabay, 28 A.3d 1158 (Me. 2011) (facts not in statement of material facts are not in the summary judgment record)
Town of Mount Vernon v. Landherr, 190 A.3d 249 (Me. 2018) (elements of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
Pushard v. Bank of Am., N.A., 175 A.3d 103 (Me. 2017) (elements of claim preclusion)