226 A.3d 771
Me.2020Background
- Judgment of $60,000 entered against Travis Otis; creditor Wuori sought turnover of Otis’s 36-foot boat "First Team."
- Trial court found the boat worth $55,000 and ordered turnover and sale under 14 M.R.S. § 3131.
- Otis, a licensed lobsterman, stopped selling lobsters in 2014 and instead contracted with the Maine Department of Marine Resources to set and haul traps for a ventless-trap survey; he was paid $16,300 for that work.
- Otis captures and catalogs lobsters for the State’s research but returns the lobsters to the sea rather than selling them.
- The trial court concluded the boat was not used "primarily for commercial fishing" because Otis did not sell the lobsters, and denied the exemption under 14 M.R.S. § 4422(9).
- The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the turnover judgment, holding that "commercial fishing" includes income-generating fishing services (not only sale of catch), so Otis’s boat may be exempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a boat used to catch lobsters for a State survey (lobsters returned and not sold) qualifies as a boat "used primarily for commercial fishing" under 14 M.R.S. § 4422(9) | Wuori: Not commercial because Otis does not sell or "harvest" the lobsters; catching for data collection is not commercial fishing | Otis: He is a licensed lobsterman paid to set/haul traps and catch lobsters; activity is income-generating and thus commercial fishing | Court: "Commercial fishing" includes income-generating services (catching/hauling for pay); trial court erred; judgment vacated and matter remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Teele v. West-Harper, 170 A.3d 803 (Me. 2017) (statutory interpretation and de novo review)
- Scamman v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 157 A.3d 223 (Me. 2017) (statutory ambiguity and resort to legislative history)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Darling's, 151 A.3d 507 (Me. 2016) (consider entire statutory scheme in interpretation)
- Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Prof'ls Licensure, 896 A.2d 271 (Me. 2006) (give trade expressions their technical meaning)
- Andrews v. Sheepscot Island Co., 138 A.3d 1197 (Me. 2016) (avoid interpretations producing illogical results)
- Urrutia v. Interstate Brands Int'l, 179 A.3d 312 (Me. 2018) (harmonize statutory scheme)
- Steelstone Indus., Inc. v. McCrum, 785 A.2d 1256 (Me. 2001) (debtor bears burden to prove exemption)
- Martin v. Buswell, 80 A. 828 (Me. 1911) (historical purpose: protect tools of a debtor's trade)