12 A.3d 1174
Me.2011Background
- Hutz and Alden, as tenants in common, own ten lots in Kennebunk, nine unimproved and one Pine Knot Lot with Pine Knot residence and changing house.
- Pine Knot Lot cannot be divided into two lots nor support more than one dwelling; equitable division of the Pine Knot Lot is impossible.
- Hutz filed a two-count complaint for equitable partition and declaratory judgment seeking sale of all Properties and exclusive listing/sale authority.
- Alden failed to designate an expert by the court-ordered deadline; motions to extend time were denied.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in Hutz’s favor, ordered sale of the Properties, and gave Hutz exclusive listing/sale authority; Alden appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper given material facts about valuation and partition feasibility | Alden disputes Pine Knot value and overall valuations; disputes preclude summary judgment. | Hutz showe d Pine Knot > others; partition impractical; summary judgment appropriate. | Summary judgment vacated; genuine disputes of material fact remain. |
| Whether physical division is impractical or would injure the parties' rights | Disputes over valuations could permit alternative partition without selling all property. | Valuations show Pine Knot dominates; division would injure rights; sale appropriate. | Issues of material fact exist; court erred in granting sale. |
| Whether equitable division could be achieved by different allocation and payment | One party could receive Pine Knot and pay the other half the value difference. | Court considered but did not commit to a buyout scheme; unresolved valuation issues persist. | Material facts in dispute; summary relief not warranted. |
| Whether Alden should be excluded from involvement in sale | No explicit principle preventing Alden’s participation if values supported it. | Court permissibly restricted sale authority to Hutz. | Dispute remains; cannot conclude exclusion was proper. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Alden's motion to extend time to designate an expert | Circumstances (hospitalization, communication disruption) show excusable neglect. | Delay far after deadlines; no excusable neglect; denial appropriate. | Abuse of discretion not shown for denial of extension;affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Maine System v. Fleet Bank of Maine, 2003 ME 20 (Me. 2003) (summary judgment in equitable relief requires no genuine issues of material fact)
- Chalet Susse Int'l, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 597 A.2d 1350 (Me. 1991) (standards for reviewing equity relief and factual disputes)
- Rinehart v. Schubel, 2002 ME 53 (Me. 2002) (partition; division impractical; weight of expert testimony)
- Ackerman v. Hojnowski, 2002 ME 147 (Me. 2002) (buyout considerations; financial capacity to pay)
- Abbott v. LaCourse, 2005 ME 103 (Me. 2005) (issues of weighing conflicting affidavits; summary judgment not favored when credibility is disputed)
- Arrow Fastener Co., Inc. v. Wrabacon, Inc., 2007 ME 34 (Me. 2007) (credibility and weight of expert testimony; summary judgment limits)
- Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Auth., 235 A.2d 295 (Me. 1967) (expert testimony weight within fact-finder's discretion)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (credibility determinations not suitable for summary judgment)
- Lane v. Williams, 521 A.2d 706 (Me. 1987) (excusable neglect standards for extending deadlines)