Dupuis v. Soucy
11 A.3d 318
| Me. | 2011Background
- Dupuis and Soucys own adjoining parcels in Winslow; boundary at issue is Dupuis's northern boundary and Soucys' southern boundary.
- Historically, a common owner’s parcel was split with four pins marked by Pelotte in 1984–85; Pelotte marked the boundary and planted trees along the northern line.
- Dupuis later purchased the Pelotte parcel (2005) and walked the line with Pelotte, noting the same pins and Pelotte’s trees.
- In 2007–2008, Soucys questioned the boundary, strung a cable, and Soucy cut trees north of a tentative line while awaiting survey results.
- Two surveys (Ellis for Soucy, Wendell for Dupuis) produced conflicting boundaries; Wendell’s survey indicated the more northerly line.
- Trial court found the boundary to be the Wendell (more northerly) line, awarded treble damages for intentional tree cutting, and awarded costs; Danuta Soucy’s liability on trespass was denied and attorney fees were awarded to Dupuis.
- Soucys appealed challenging boundary, tree-cut intent, Danuta liability, and attorney-fee calculation under 14 M.R.S. § 7552.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boundary location and weight of surveys | Soucys argue Wendell’s boundary is incorrect | Dupuis relies on Wendell; Ellis incomplete | Boundary north line as per Wendell; not clearly erroneous |
| Intentional or knowing tree cutting | Dupuis proved Soucy acted knowingly or intentionally | Soucy lacked awareness of Dupuis rights; reliance on surveyor | Treble damages affirmed for intentional/knowing conduct |
| Danuta Soucy’s personal liability | Trespass claims against Danuta supported | No evidence tying Danuta to acts; she did not direct actions | Judgment against Danuta on trespass vacated |
| Attorney fees under 14 M.R.S. § 7552(5) | Fees appropriate as reasonable professional services | Fees exceed one-half of damages as required by statute | Remand for recalculation of attorney fees consistent with § 7552(5) |
Key Cases Cited
- McGrath v. Hills, 662 A.2d 215 (Me. 1995) (boundary location review; weight of surveyor testimony)
- Hamlin v. Niedner, 2008 ME 130 (Me. 2008) (acquiescence doctrine in boundary disputes)
- Shrader-Miller v. Miller, 2004 ME 117 (Me. 2004) (intentional or knowing standard for treble damages)
- Glidden v. Belden, 684 A.2d 1306 (Me. 1996) (trespass and owner knowledge requirement)
- Bonk v. McPherson, 605 A.2d 74 (Me. 1992) (knowingly vs. willfully; subjective awareness standard)
- Martin v. Brown, 650 A.2d 937 (Me. 1994) (willful vs. intentional conduct in boundary/tree-cut cases)
- Efstathiou v. Efstathiou, 2009 ME 107 (Me. 2009) (credibility deference to trial court)