Pleasantdale Condominiums, LLC v. Wakefield, 37 F.4th 728

In 2019 Pleasantdale (via assignment from Telos) bought an 8‑unit apartment property from Wakefield for $725,000, on an "as‑is" basis; Pleasantdale had no direct communications with Wakefield pre‑closing.
A site plan recorded in 1976 showed an area of the Property "to be filled." Around the early 2000s Wakefield completed that fill with gravel/debris and covered it.
After closing Pleasantdale discovered the buried fill during excavation for new units and sued in Maine state court alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation grounded in a Maine disclosure statute (Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 173(5)).
The complaint also alleged in paragraph 42 that Wakefield "actively concealed" the fills (buried them and lied about knowledge), but otherwise framed liability around the statutory disclosure duty.
Wakefield removed to federal court, moved for summary judgment arguing the statute applies only to 1–4 unit residential sales (the Property had eight units) and asserting caveat emptor; Pleasantdale conceded the statute did not apply but asserted an independent active concealment fraud theory.
The district court held the statute inapplicable and granted summary judgment to Wakefield on the active concealment theory for lack of evidence that Wakefield took steps to hide the fill; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the active‑concealment theory properly before the district court?	Pleasantdale: No — Wakefield never moved for summary judgment on that independent claim; deciding it was a surprise.	Wakefield: Complaint did not plainly plead an independent concealment claim; his notice covered summary judgment on the complaint; Pleasantdale itself raised the theory in its response.	Court: Properly before the court — Pleasantdale put the theory in play and did not seek relief when Wakefield rebutted it in reply.
Did the record create a genuine factual dispute that Wakefield took steps to hide the fill?	Pleasantdale: Wakefield buried the fill so it "could not be seen by visual observation by prospective purchasers."	Wakefield: Fill is ordinarily covered; the site plan was recorded publicly; no evidence he took steps or intended to conceal the fill from buyers.	Court: No genuine dispute — no definite, competent evidence that Wakefield took steps to hide or had intent to conceal; summary judgment for Wakefield affirmed.

Kezer v. Mark Stimson Assocs., 742 A.2d 898 (Me. 1999) (defines active concealment as steps taken to hide the true state of affairs).
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden‑shifting framework).
Houlton Citizens' Coal. v. Town of Houlton, 175 F.3d 178 (1st Cir. 1999) (standard of review for summary judgment: de novo).
Mancini v. City of Providence, 909 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2018) (view record and inferences most favorably to the nonmoving party).
Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) (nonmovant must present definite, competent evidence to avoid summary judgment).
McKinnon v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 977 A.2d 420 (Me. 2009) (publicly available records undercut fraudulent concealment claims).