Estate of John R. Barron v. Shapiro & Morley, LLC
157 A.3d 769
Me.2017Background
- Chase obtained a foreclosure judgment against John R. Barron; after the 180‑day redemption period a public sale was conducted and the high bidder closed, generating $41,820.94 in surplus proceeds after payment to Chase.
- Surplus proceeds were deposited in counsel Shapiro & Morley’s client trust account; the firm follows a practice of waiting for the 30‑day objection period following a report of sale (14 M.R.S. § 6324) before disbursing surplus to the mortgagor.
- Shapiro & Morley sent Chase its portion in July 2014; it filed the report of sale on September 9, 2014, stating the surplus would be disbursed after the objection period.
- Barron demanded immediate payment, filed a Superior Court action (Oct 3, 2014) alleging conversion, IIED, unfair trade practices, and conspiracy, and then filed an objection to the report of sale on Oct 9, 2014 (the last day to object).
- The firm disbursed the surplus to Barron on Oct 23, 2014 (two weeks after the objection period expired). The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Shapiro & Morley and Chase; the Estate of Barron appealed.
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding Shapiro & Morley lawfully retained the funds in good faith until the objection period lapsed and that Barron failed to show a right to exclusive possession during the July–October interval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion: whether defendants unlawfully withheld surplus proceeds | Barron: defendants converted the surplus by not paying him after his demand in July 2014 | Shapiro & Morley: lawful, good‑faith temporary possession pending report‑of‑sale objection period; no duty to disburse earlier | Court: no conversion — no exclusive right to possession before objection period lapsed; retention was in good faith and reasonable |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress | Barron: emotional harm flowed from defendants’ withholding of funds | Defendants: conduct was lawful and not extreme or outrageous | Court: claim insufficiently developed on appeal and waived; summary judgment sustained |
| Unfair Trade Practices (UTPC) | Barron: withholding surplus constituted an unfair trade practice | Defendants: conduct consistent with statute, judgment, and customary practice | Court: addressed independently but plaintiff abandoned developed argument; summary judgment affirmed |
| Civil Conspiracy | Barron: defendants conspired to withhold funds | Defendants: any liability derivative of lawful conduct; no unlawful act to conspire about | Court: claim not argued on appeal; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lougee Conservancy v. CitiMortgage, 48 A.3d 774 (Me. 2012) (elements and standards for conversion at summary judgment)
- Withers v. Hackett, 714 A.2d 798 (Me. 1998) (conversion requires property interest, right to possession, and demand denied)
- Northeast Bank of Lewiston & Auburn v. Murphy, 512 A.2d 344 (Me. 1986) (conversion requires intent to exercise dominion that seriously interferes)
- Leighton v. Fleet Bank of Maine, 634 A.2d 453 (Me. 1993) (conversion elements and related principles)
- Budge v. Town of Millinocket, 55 A.3d 484 (Me. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)