State v. Price-Rite Fuel, Inc.
24 A.3d 81
Me.2011Background
- Price-Rite prepaid-fuel contracts in winter 2007-2008 failed delivery obligations.
- State filed a five-count complaint (UTPA violations and fraud) Jan 18, 2008; sought restitution, penalties, costs.
- Price-Rite and Curro operated; Curro as president/CEO; security for prepaid contracts not maintained in 2007-08.
- By Dec 2007, Price-Rite could not purchase enough heating oil; stopped automatic deliveries and partially filled tanks.
- Attorney General filed TRO affidavits alleging irreparable harm affecting >320 customers; court issued TRO and monitor.
- Notice under 5 M.R.S. § 209 was not provided pre-filing; court later ordered restitution and civil penalties; Curro personally liable for UTPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does failure of ten-day notice bar the action? | Price-Rite argues § 209 notice is mandatory and dispositive. | Price-Rite contends lack of notice precludes relief; state relied on TRO affidavits for exception. | Not-barred; exception satisfied; court could proceed without notice. |
| Did Curro personally liable for intentional UTPA violation? | Curro knowingly directed sales despite noncompliance. | Curro contests finding of intent. | Yes, evidence supported intentional violation and personal civil penalty. |
| Was the UTPA claim supported by undisputed security breach of § 1110? | UTPA violations arose from failing to secure prepaid contracts. | Not challenged here; focus on securities compliance. | Courts upheld that lack of security under § 1110 supported UTPA findings. |
| Was the civil penalty properly imposed and calculated? | UTPA allows up to $10,000 per intentional violation. | Penalty amount contested as excessive or improper. | Court’s imposition of penalties affirmed; supported by findings of intent. |
| Do the securities requirements of 10 M.R.S. § 1110 apply to prepaid contracts? | § 1110 requires security for prepaid contracts. | Section 1110 obligations are applicable and were not met. | Yes; noncompliance with § 1110 supported UTPA liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanseverino v. Gregor, 2011 ME 8 (Me. 2011) (supports competency of record evidence for factual findings)
- Garland v. Roy, 2009 ME 86 (Me. 2009) (de novo review of denial of M.R. Civ. P. 50 motion)
- Lyons v. Baptist Sch. of Christian Training, 2002 ME 137 (Me. 2002) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
- State v. Weinschenk, 2005 ME 28 (Me. 2005) (clearly erroneous standard; competent evidence defends findings)
- Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 32 (Me. 2011) (intent and factual determinations on UTPA penalties)