Lyman v. Huber
10 A.3d 707
Me.2010Background
- Lyman and Huber, romantic partners from 1991 to 2006, owned property in Cape Elizabeth as tenants in common with plans to operate a horse farm.
- Lyman resided on the property full-time from 1994 until April 2006; Huber did not reside there full-time until 2002–2003.
- Beginning in 1995, Huber exhibited increasingly controlling, angry, and intrusive conduct, including demanding Lyman not touch his belongings and yelling during episodes.
- Huber engaged in compulsive and isolating behaviors, including hoarding, excessive cleaning rituals, and making Lyman feel fearful and withdrawn.
- In 2004 Lyman broke her ankle; Huber did not assist, leaving her to seek help from others, and she gradually ended the relationship in 2006, taking her horses with her.
- Lyman filed an eight-count complaint seeking, among other things, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and damages for lost business opportunities; the trial court awarded damages but on appeal the judgment was vacated and remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Huber's conduct supports IIED elements one and four | Lyman argues Huber acted intentionally or recklessly and caused severe distress. | Huber contends conduct was not extreme/outrageous or distress not so severe as to be uncould endure. | No; IIED not proven for extreme distress |
| Whether Lyman's distress was so severe that no reasonable person could endure it | Lyman suffered extreme distress from years of coercive conduct. | Lyman's distress described as common stress; not extreme. | No; distress not extreme to meet standard |
| Whether damages for loss of business opportunity based on ouster were proper | Ouster damages reflect lost business opportunity from being driven off the property. | Ouster is not a recognized tort in Maine; damages improperly awarded. | No; vacate damages for loss of business opportunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158 (Me. 2001) (establishes four-element IIED test)
- Vicnire v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 401 A.2d 148 (Me. 1979) (objective symptomatology may be inferred from extreme conduct)
- Latremore v. Latremore, 584 A.2d 626 (Me. 1990) (extreme and outrageous conduct can support severe distress without expert proof)
- Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 207 Ill.2d 263 (Ill. 2003) (emphasizes need for severe distress demonstrating medical/psychological diagnosis in some cases)