The Cote Corporation v. Kelley Earthworks, Inc.
2014 ME 93
| Me. | 2014Background
- Cote filed a mechanic’s lien against Kelley’s land after installing an asphalt plant there pursuant to a contract with RC & Sons Paving, the lessee. Cote sued to enforce the lien.
- Kelley was served but failed to answer; the court entered default against Kelley.
- Cote moved for summary judgment; Kelley did not oppose. The court granted judgment for Cote for $29,990 plus interest and fees and ordered sale of the property unless redeemed within 90 days.
- Ten days after entry of judgment Kelley moved under M.R. Civ. P. 55(c) and 60(b); the court denied setting aside the default but treated the Rule 60(b) filing as a Rule 59(e) motion and amended the judgment by removing the sale order and converting the remedy to a money judgment.
- Cote appealed the amendment (cross-appeal); Kelley appealed other rulings. The Law Court vacated the amended judgment and remanded, holding the statute requires sale (or sale of a suitable lot) to satisfy a mechanic’s lien, though a right of redemption or partitioned sale is permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cote) | Defendant's Argument (Kelley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment established the lien elements (consent, lessee’s legal interest, damages) | Cote argued its uncontroverted facts and affidavit proved consent, RC’s leasehold interest, and amount owed | Kelley argued genuine issues existed on consent, RC’s legal interest in land, and measure of damages | Consent, leasehold interest, and damages were established on the summary-judgment record; summary judgment affirmed on the merits |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was required after default and unopposed summary judgment | Cote maintained no fraud or basis for relief; default and inaction precluded relief | Kelley claimed fraud/misrepresentations justified relief from judgment | Denial of Rule 60(b) relief affirmed; no plain and unmistakable injustice and Kelley failed to protect its interests by defaulting |
| Whether the trial court could convert an order of sale into a money judgment | Cote argued statutes mandate sale of property subject to a mechanic’s lien, not substitution of a money judgment | Kelley urged equities (property worth > $1M) justified avoiding forced sale and accepting money judgment | Trial court abused discretion in striking sale; statutes require sale of property (or a suitable lot) before any money judgment for any deficiency |
| Scope of remedy required: whole-property sale vs. sale of suitable lot or redemption | Cote argued sale required but did not preclude partitioning to a suitable lot | Kelley urged full avoidance of sale given high value/equities | Court may order sale but may direct sale of a suitable lot and may include right of redemption; money judgment only allowed for deficiency after sale |
Key Cases Cited
- Cach, LLC v. Kulas, 21 A.3d 1015 (Me. 2011) (summary-judgment standards and burden on moving party)
- Platz Assocs. v. Finley, 973 A.2d 743 (Me. 2009) (failure to respond to requests can establish consent to work)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (Me. 2007) (a lease conveys a possessory legal interest in land)
- Stewart v. Aldrich, 788 A.2d 603 (Me. 2002) (leases treated as equivalent to conveyances for many purposes)
- Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. Presteel Corp., 398 A.2d 397 (Me. 1979) (mechanic’s lien upheld where leaseholder arranged work with owner’s consent)
- Twin Island Dev. Corp. v. Ross, 522 A.2d 901 (Me. 1987) (court may order segregation and sale of a parcel rather than entire property to satisfy lien)
- Hickson v. Vescom Corp., 87 A.3d 704 (Me. 2014) (statutory construction: give plain meaning to lien statute and harmonize related provisions)
- In re David H., 985 A.2d 490 (Me. 2009) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 60(b) relief)