Degenhardt v. Ewe Ltd. Partnership
13 A.3d 790
| Me. | 2011Background
- EWE owns a fifteen-unit building on Union Street in Bangor and Degenhardt moved in January 2009, signing a Guest Registry designating unit 8 and agreeing to Rules describing the property as a licensed boarding house.
- The property operated under a municipal license as a lodging house, with room rates posted and a guest register maintained, though some regulatory requirements were only partially complied with.
- Most residents, including Degenhardt, paid rent monthly rather than daily, and unit 8 lacked private bathroom/kitchen facilities, sharing common areas with others.
- Degenhardt relocated to unit 9 in May 2009, which had its own bathroom/kitchen and a higher rent, but no signed paperwork accompanied the move.
- In September 2009, after a domestic incident, Degenhardt was told he was no longer welcome and was escorted off the premises, with some personal belongings left behind; this led to a district court action seeking injunctive relief and damages for illegal eviction.
- The district court held EWE illegally evicted Degenhardt, denied lodging-house status, and awarded $590 in damages and attorney fees; on appeal, the court affirmed the finding but vacated part of the damages and remanded for a reduced award of $473.33.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Union Street property qualifies as a lodging house | Degenhardt argues the property is a lodging house under 30-A M.R.S. §§ 3837-3838. | EWE contends the property is a lodging house, so eviction falls outside the forcible entry and detainer process. | Property is not a lodging house. |
| Whether the eviction was illegal and thus actionable damages are available | Degenhardt asserts illegal eviction under 14 M.R.S. § 6014(2). | EWE argues the eviction complied with lodge-house procedures if applicable. | Eviction found illegal; damages awarded conceptually sustained, with correction on amount. |
| Whether the damages award was properly calculated | Degenhardt contends the $240 for housing and $350 for lost property are valid. | EWE questions the $350 for property and the $240 component as unsupported or incorrect. | Damages vacated in part; total reduced to $473.33. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hailu v. Simonds, 2001 ME 155 (Me. 2001) (helps distinguish lodging house from regular rental property via occupancy and agreement factors)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 2007 ME 83 (Me. 2007) (factors distinguishing lease from license in lodging contexts inform lodging-house analysis)
- Reardon v. Lovely Dev., Inc., 2004 ME 74 (Me. 2004) (defines actual damages as losses caused by eviction, allowing non-mathematical proofs)
- King v. King, 507 A.2d 1057 (Me. 1986) (illustrates loss-of-housing as a component of actual damages)
- Botka v. S.C. Noyes & Co., 2003 ME 128 (Me. 2003) (supports judgments based on reasonable, probabilistic damage estimation)
- Dalphonse v. St. Laurent & Son, Inc., 2007 ME 53 (Me. 2007) (courts may permit reopening evidence to prevent unfair results)
- Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 2006 ME 140 (Me. 2006) (recognizes trial courts’ discretion in subsidiary findings when evidence supports them)
- Estate of Miller, 2008 ME 176 (Me. 2008) (applies de novo review to statutory interpretation and factual findings)