Fore, LLC v. Benoit
2012 ME 1
| Me. | 2012Background
- Benoit, a Massachusetts accountant, provided services for Rivermeadow Golf Course in Maine.
- Fore, a Maine entity, purchased the Maine golf course from RJ Golf (NH entity).
- Fore alleges Benoit fraudulently misrepresented the golf course tax returns he prepared.
- The Superior Court granted Benoit’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Fore appeals, arguing Benoit had sufficient Maine contacts related to the claims.
- The court vacates and remands to determine whether Benoit should defend in Maine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Maine have personal jurisdiction over Benoit? | Fore asserts Benoit’s Maine- related conduct and contacts satisfy the long‑arm statute. | Benoit argues no Maine nexus or purposeful direction toward Maine. | Yes; prima facie jurisdiction exists, and remand for fairness analysis. |
| Are Benoit’s Maine contacts related to the claims? | Fore shows misrepresentation about Maine golf course tax returns. | Benoit claims contacts are unrelated to Fore’s claims. | Related; contacts tied to the alleged misrepresentation and tax-returns work. |
| Is Fore’s prima facie showing sufficient to defeat dismissal? | Fore need only show prima facie jurisdiction with pleadings and affidavits. | Hears no jurisdictional basis from filings. | Yes; prima facie showing established. |
| Is it reasonable to require Benoit to defend in Maine? | Fore’s witnesses and Maine interests justify forum in Maine. | Benoit’s lack of Maine presence argues against convenience. | Remand for the trial court to assess reasonableness, with possible evidentiary hearing. |
| What is the proper procedural posture on remand? | Court should assess jurisdiction anew with additional evidence if needed. | Court should follow standard rule for remand proceedings. | Court may, on remand, hold an evidentiary hearing if appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24 (Me. 2011) (due process framework for personal jurisdiction; three-part test)
- Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124 (Me. 2006) (state interest and forum considerations for jurisdiction)
- Bickford v. Onslow Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 2004 ME 111 (Me. 2004) (contacts must relate to the claim; continuing obligations considered)
- Cavers v. Houston McLane Co., Inc., 2008 ME 164 (Me. 2008) (single transaction can support jurisdiction where related to claim)