Lougee Conservancy v. Citimortgage, Inc.
2012 ME 103
| Me. | 2012Background
- Lougee Conservancy is an irrevocable trust holding 593 acres, with Homestead and barn; Eleanor Chapin and David Lougee are trustees and/ or beneficiaries; Jim Lougee resides nearby; Safeguard and D&S were contracted to secure a foreclosed North Road property and mistakenly targeted the Conservancy property; D&S entered the Homestead and barn, removed, inventoried, photographed contents, and damaged a lock and door; access code was provided and Jim later accessed the home with a deputy after Safeguard intervened; the Lougees allege injuries including emotional distress and property damage; CitiMortgage moved for summary judgment on vicarious liability and all claims; the court granted summary judgment to CitiMortgage and Safeguard/D&S on most counts, leading to interlocutory appeal; the issue framed is whether the Lougees’ claims for trespass, invasion of privacy, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, punitive damages, and negligence survive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agency liability for Safeguard and D&S | Lougees show Safeguard acted as CitiMortgage’s agent | Safeguard and D&S as independent contractors preclude agency liability | Agency questions survive summary judgment; prima facie evidence supports agency; trial needed |
| Invasion of privacy by intrusion | Lougees have equitable title and occupancy interests in Homestead and barn; intrusion by entry is actionable | Individual Lougees cannot claim occupancy/privacy without living there | Summary judgment improper for privacy claim; however, on the merits the claim fails due to lack of intentional intrusion elements beyond a reasonable dispute; court ultimately affirms on this claim as to others |
| Conversion | D&S interfered with property rights of the Conservancy and Lougees | Interference was temporary, in good faith, and not sufficiently serious | Conversion claim fails as a matter of law; not sufficiently serious interference |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | D&S’s conduct was extreme and outrageous and caused severe distress | Conduct was not extreme and outrageous enough for IIED; distress not unbearable | Summary judgment for CitiMortgage, Safeguard, and D&S; no prima facie case for IIED |
| Negligence | Defendants owed a duty to act with care and breached it, causing harm | No viable damages beyond trespass or improper entry; record insufficient for negligence | Negligence claim survives; prima facie evidence of duty and breach; remanded for damages; agency finding also supports negligence against all defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Osborne, 133 Me. 497 (1935) (equitable title confers ownership-like interests to beneficiaries)
- Norway Sav. Bank v. Merriam, 88 Me. 146 (1895) (trust creates equitable interest and protects property rights)
- Knight v. Penobscot Bay Med. Ctr., 420 A.2d 915 (Me. 1980) (occupant/privacy interests can arise from personal possessions)
- Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, 365 A.2d 792 (Me.1976) (privacy considerations in storage or listing of personal items)
- Nelson v. Me. Times, 373 A.2d 1221 (Me.1977) (test for invasion of privacy under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B)