*1 APPENDIX A
Roland SIROIS
TOWN FRENCHVILLE.1 OF
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued Sept. 21,1981. 12,1982. Feb.
Decided caption
1. The reflects our deletion of Valere Tardif, Albert, Roger Raoul Paradis and three members of the Frenchville Se- lectmen, party defendants in this case. The *2 Burén, Van (orally),
William J. Smith plaintiff. Madawaska, (orally),
Rudolph T. Pelletier defendant. Me., Russell, Boothbay designate 410 A.2d Harbor misnomer the failure stantive n.3 Inhabitants of the Town town defendant See, Town of Inhabitants of Frenchville. McKUSICK, J., June, GODFREY, Before spoke C. road ....” Sirois NICHOLS, WATHEN, JJ., CARTER and again ought FHA and concluded he to seek DUFRESNE, A. R. public financing through J. FHA the Town. A special was held on WATHEN, Justice. 2, 1975 which the citizens plaintiff, appeals Roland Sirois approved by voting agenda. Article 4 of the a judgment Superior (Aroos- Court *3 Article 4 read as follows: County), took granted summary which “To see if the town will instruct judgment to the defendant Town of to to apply Farmers Home Ad- Frenchville. sought Plaintiff’s action to ministration and to secure loans or issue impose liability upon the defendant munici- $50,- bonds in connection herewith for pality estoppel on either a or an contract 000.00 for funds to and meet Federal theory for the purchase, Town’s failure to State Grants obtained for construc- sewage maintain and a treatment Sewerage tion of Sewer and facility. The Superior Court found that the facilities for the Town of Frenchville.” action was barred the Statute of Frauds. system land sewer While we do not concur finding, with that built never the Town or we judgment affirm the grounds on the though voters even a deed was that the evidence submitted on the motion Town completed and recorded. Sirois summary judgment for establishes as a system purposes sewer licensing be- law matter of that defendant Town is 1975; September tween further not liable either contract sewer During lines were added in 1976. promissory or estoppel. time, lawyer that engineer- same a and an pleadings, and deposition affidavits ing company paid by prepared Sirois in submitted connection motion for Depart- Town’s to the FHA and summary judgment the following establish (DEP) ment of Environmental Protection uncontroverted Early plain- facts. in 12,1975, August for a license. On Florence tiff Roland Sirois owned land in French- Michaud, Frenchville, Manager Town ville, began Maine and develop the land wrote a repeating letter to the state- Sirois Queens into Village Subdivision, a hous- Daigle’s May ments in Clovis letter of ing development. Spring In the of that year Sirois went to the Farmers Home Ad- granted The DEP the Town a license in (FHA) ministration seeking financing for September approved FHA system construction aof sewer for the financing early part of 1977 and development. The FHA informed Sirois requested that au- the voters amend their that before would consider a $35,000.00. thorization Article 4 to At a private individual, (Sirois) he would have to special meeting the voters refused to have agreement with the Town of time, present amend Article 4. At the (Town) whereby the Town Town never operated has or maintained operating would take responsibility for system. In February of Sirois filed system. On Town, complaint against suit and in his Daigle, after discussions with alleged agreement by breach of an Sirois, being one of three town select- construction, pay costs of Frenchville, men in wrote letter to Sirois operate, system. and to maintain the sewer stating accept- that the Board of Selectmen alternative, in the also Pleading Sirois ed on behalf of the Town the damages theory sought promisso- “maintaining operating proposed ry estoppel. The defendant Town of treatment facilities.” At a Frenchville, in com- Selectmen, their answer the entire Board of held on contract, May 12, 1975, agreed plaint any accept denied that promise or ever between the Town responsibility on behalf existed “maintaining operating the subdivision Sirois. subchapter development “It is the intention of
After substantial factual body way deposition, as a had occurred admis- the board selectmen affidavit, and exec- the defendant moved for shall all administrative sion and exercise ” (empha- The de- summary its favor. the town .... powers utive first, argued alternatively: added) fendant sis second, contract, there was no previously held one This Court has acceptance of the Town offer or selectmen cannot member of a board of third, assuming was unauthorized and to contract unless his authori bind a town contract, was barred there was it proved or his actions ty to act alone is justice of Frauds. The below did Statute v. Inhabit subsequently ratified. See Prest explicitly rule the existence of Farmington, Town of 116Me. ants contract vel non nor the issue of (1917); of Rich Inhabitants A. of such a but rather assumed the existence Johnson, 53 Me. mond contract found unenforceable city persons contracting All with town *4 non-compliance because of with the Statute peril notice at their of officers must take reasons, though fully of Frauds. His not authority of the of such officers. the extent stated, seem to be that as the defendant burden to establish the It is not the town’s urged, agreement a was either contract plaintiffs bur absence of but for the sale of an in land or an interest prove authority. Van Buren den to See agreement performed not be within one to of Light Power v. Inhabitants Van & Co. sufficient, year and no memorandum Buren, 119, 123, 100 A. 116 Me. of required by existed as Statute present a (1917). case context of Upon examining ap- the record on Frauds. to fact must raised as material issue of peal are satisfied that of we Statute summary judg authority or ratification inapplicable Frauds is facts of The record is devoid ment to be avoided. Nonetheless, we case. affirm the was authoriz any suggestion of a below because we conclude that as matter his ed to act alone or that actions agreement law existed no contract or subsequently Similarly, ratified. the letter no between Sirois and the Town and that no Michaud had bind written Florence promise was made the Town Sirois ing Town of Frenchville. The effect on the plaintiff’s prom- support manager are powers and duties a town issory estoppel claim. (1978). The set forth in 30 M.R.S.A.§ following relies docu- legislature has listed in that statute four alleged manager specific ments and events evidence acts which the town teen do; Daigle’s or let- that list is agreement promise: Clovis is authorized absent from 1975; May Florence Michaud’s of the power ter contract behalf 1975; August the minutes of that statute the Although letter of Town. under 27,1975 meet- manager pur Board of Selectmen is authorized to act May Town, ing; correspondence chasing agent the Town’s with her letter of DEP; approv- applications August the FHA and does not indicate that she Planning Town, project purchasing the Town for the but rather al was Board; approval by accepting responsibility the voters of French- for the that she meeting operation 4 at the town and maintenance of the sewer ville of Article a matter of system. 1975. We find that as documents and law none the above meeting The minutes contract, agreement or events evidences held on Frenchville Board promise between the Town and Sirois. the al 1975 do not indicate that leged or were ever agreement Dai- its terms The letter written Clovis consequently, minutes to bind the Town of discussed gle insufficient said (1978)pro cannot be to evidence contract Frenchville. 30 M.R.S.A. 2316 § pertinent part: ratify Daigle’s Town or to earlier vides in action. The of the meeting Bomann, minutes Me., reveal made Chapman here. See topic of discussion at 381 A.2d acceptance op- summary judg- grant We affirm the erating the subdivision grounds as a matter of ment on the roads, system not or treatment law nor is the Town no contract existed estopped denying its lia- correspondence Town’s with bility. and applications to the FHA DEP do is: entry not any disclose contract or be tween the Town and Sirois. These docu Judgment affirmed. ments applications, constitute not a con tract, agreement promise. We also re McKUSICK, GODFREY, C. J. and ject argument because JJ., NICHOLS, J., DUFRESNE, R. A. applications made the it impliedly accepted concurring. or ratified the alleged At contract.
point time, no contract existed to be CARTER, Justice, dissenting. nothing correspondence in the respectfully dissent. or applications ratified the actions Clovis Daigle. approval In addition project justice The motion decided be- this case by the Town Planning Board does bind low solely on the basis that the Statute Town to contract party seeking Frauds barred enforcement of contract *5 approval. might that plaintiff exist between the the town. that majority determines Finally, plaintiff the relies on the conclusion to be error. The then majority approval voters’ of Article 4 at the Town goes on appeal to decide the on basis the meeting. The action taken by the voters that papers demonstrate, the motion as a give did not rise agreement prom or law, matter of that no contract as existed ise by pay the Town to the costs of con plaintiff between the and the town. do structing, operating, the justice not believe that the motion decided sewer system. contrary, by On the the that He issue.1 states follows in the plain meaning of Article the only citizens granting Order summary the judgment: authorized the Selectmen to seek After consideration of affi- pleadings, the initial necessary deposition, davits and grants this Court system project. approval, This without fur promises upon by motion. The sued ther subsequent voters, or action as a subject Plaintiff are Statute contract, matter of law did not create a writings Frauds. The Plain- offered agreement between the Town and Sirois or tiff do not constitute a sufficient memo- promise by constitute a Sirois. alleged agreements, randum of the Consequently, none of the documents or the exceptions Statute urged events which the relies evi apply. Plaintiff do not agreement dences a contract or his cause action (Emphasis added.) for breach of The full context contract fails for lack of the justice’s existence of a language indicates that he decided Further, contract. plaintiff’s only cause of ac the issue of the effect applicability and tion promissory based on estoppel decide, must also of the Statute of and did Frauds fail because one of such parties apparently argue elements indeed the did not promise over, claim is a party being made the issue of whether contract ever sued, promise and no such by the Town was came into existence. language majority justice
1. I it from take that the but motion did decide this issue opinion majority agrees that the me in justice rather that the motion assumed opinion page conclusion. The indicates at 294 existed and that Statute majority position 294.) that (At does not take the Frauds would bar the action. 296 Industries, Inc. v. technique then him. Statler
That such was
decisional
before
Protection, Me.,
Environmental
justice
is lent further credence Board of
motion
(1975).
justice
specifically
333 A.2d
704
failure
Finally, I
find
a contract did exist.
Summary judgment may be ordered
significant
justice
was at
think
so
court
“only ‘when the facts before the
pains not to find that a contract existed
re-
conclusively preclude
party’s]
...
[a
promises
his
his references in
Order
“the
covery
in favor of
”
”
upon.
“alleged agree-
.
result,’
sued
..
and to
party
only possible
is the
other
added.)
(Emphasis
lan-
ments.”
Such
Me.,
A.2d
Gagne
Corp.,
v. Cianbro
431
view,
guage, my
only
can
reflect a delib-
(1981),
Wallingford v.
quoting
1319
attempt
consciously
he
erate
to show that
Me.,
(1980),
Butcher,
413 A.2d
165
deciding
avoided
the issue
whether
because,
subject
facts not
basis of
contract was in fact
the words or
formed
genuine dispute,
prevailing party
parties.
acts of the
law.
judgment as a matter of
entitled to
56(c).
this case is now
M.R.Civ.P.
As
justice
If
motion
did not decide
us,
postured
we must determine
before
issue,
sponte
latter
we
not sua
decide
should
found
properly
the lower court
whether
re
appeal.
Estate of
issue
genuine
is no
issue of material
there
Me.,
Thompson,
(1980);
414 A.2d
890
so,
and,
appli-
fact
whether
court’s
Me.,
Parrotta,
361 A.2d
Christman v.
cation
law to these facts was correct.
Suhre, Me.,
(1976);
345
924
see Jones v.
Salamone, Me.,
A.2d
v.
435
See Karantza
ap-
(1975). “Principles
A.2d
sound
(1981);
City
v.
of Port-
Salamone
pellate
extremely
us
reluc-
practice make
land, Me.,
(1979).
Secondly, Plaintiff, Answer, Af- Deposition of justice’s language plaint, construed to show can be exhib- Roland D. Martin with five a decision on his contract was fidavit of *6 thereto, formed, H. Mi- affirm its Affidavit of Florence properly we can the decision chaud, plaintiff of with it is Counter-Affidavit only clearly below if demonstrable that and Counter-Affidavit of Clovis genuine there issues of material fact attachment are no set They the of with two attachments.2 in case on the basis the factual following the salient facts. papers set forth in the out assertions motion ap- rights again the of the 2. This document and substantive case demonstrates counsel’s thoughtless disregard may adversely parently parties inade- of the docket be affected the entry quacy None of rec- sheet maintained the clerk. on docket. Both the of entries foregoing papers 74(a), appen- are appeal, the docket in this case. M.R.Civ.P. specifically: entered and the ord M.R.Civ.P. 79(a) 74C(a), required appeal, states dix on are M.R.Civ.P. proceed- in the to contain “all docket entries ings forming clerk, heavily, per- appear- papers This in docket below.” Court relies All filed with the all function, orders, verdicts, upon ances, appellate judgments its and shall procedure upon be- chronologically followed sheet to determine the be noted the docket and may often low. The entries be raised and which the docket sheet shall be marked with the docket number. dispositive determining briefly if issues were These notations shall show the nature below, they raised paper in what context were of writ issued and the each filed or court, with of dealt with the timeliness substance of each order raised, they disposed they showing were were of court and of return execution Court, process. host of issues and a other going appellate standing parties and responsibility While initial it is the clerk’s jurisdiction appropriate will Wise counsel see docket are notations court. made, is, believe, look well to the docket entries. it I the ultimate docket, Requests The contains for Admissions time record of counsel to consult the time from filed, assume, properly be sure that it is maintained. of Fact defendant and docketed, date appeal, not and dated on the same can a critical are On the docket sheet be plaintiff’s The Complaint makes fol- .. simply genuine “. that there is no issue lowing allegations respect to the form- as to fact any material ... and that De- ation of contract issues: fendants are entitled such dismissal as a matter law.” it The Motion states that 12,1975,
4. On or about May Plaintiff is pleadings, deposition based on the of Ro- Frenchville, and Defendant Town of Sirois, land the affidavit of Florence H. through Selectmen, agreed its Plain- D. Michaud and affidavit of Roland system tiff would construct a sewer and Martin with the five exhibits attached plant in Frenchville for Queen thereto. The attached affidavit Florence proposed Village Subdivision H. Michaud asserts that she served as town and that the Town of Frenchville would manager during responsible year for the entire 1975 and oper- that, ating until It system plant said further asserts to her and would pay knowledge, plaintiff’s Plaintiff for charges attorney, his reasonable William J. constructing Smith, firm, plaintiff’s engineering Hy- said system Inc., Associates, droResources and did not 2, 1975,
5. On July of De- voters render municipality, services at Frenchville, fendant Town of a legal request, paid any town’s meeting, approved said money re- for services rendered in its and instructed Selectmen to up borrow spect project question. Fifty ($50,000.00) Thousand Dollars payment of the sys- construction of said The affidavit of Roland D. Martin asserts facility.3 tem and presently (as that he serves date of added.) (Emphasis affidavit) defendant’s An- execution of the as town sets swer forth affirmative defenses manager based and town clerk of the defendant upon impact legal concepts authenticity attests five doc- Frauds, Statute municipal doctrine of uments attached to the affidavit. first immunity and sovereign immunity, document attached to Mr. Martin’s affidavit Limitations, Statute failure to state a is a stationery letter written on the claim granted, Selectmen, which relief can be and “Office Assessors and estoppel waiver of arising plain- from the Overseers of the Poor” of municipality Frenchville, proceeding tiff’s conduct in Maine. The construct the letter dated system 12, 1975, and to thereafter it. is addressed to the pertinent allegations plain- two and is in reference to “Subdivision Plans Complaint, above, set Queen tiff’s forth are denied and Treatment Vil- Facility, Waste Inc., Frenchville, asserted as an lage Improvement, additional affirma- Maine tive defense that the contract “is not en- 04745.” The letter reads as follows: against forceable the Defendants because it Dear Mr. Sirois: *7 authorized, was never approved, or ratified The Board of Selectmen has by them.” behalf of the of by The Answer was responsibility maintaining operat- followed a Motion for of and Summary Judgment by ing proposed sewage made the defend- facili- pursuant ants to asserting including M.R.Civ.P. 56 ties the sanitation sewers. (October 1980) Summary Complaint as the Motion for 3. sets claim The also out a for relief Judgment. theory promissory estoppel Plaintiffs to Re- of these based .Answers quests appear Me., Bomann, Chapman in the record and are docketed under 381 A.2d on December 1980. The Motion for Summa- I also issues of fact 1127 believe ry Judgment Requests papers respect does recite that exist motion to that and Answers thereto are intended to of be claim. Neither this claim nor of the issues the basis for the Motion. cannot determine be- raised it were the court considered consideration, any, what to Accordingly, them low. I do not herein discuss Considering summary court below. the content of to that of claim. by plaintiff, they the Answers filed have would impact my analysis, in, no whether included from, papers. or excluded the motion 298
Further, the Town of Frenchville will to set forth certain factual data with ceeds proposed respect proposed facility. to the site and It maintain the roads in the subdi- operat- that the annual indicates estimated vision. Daigle ing are proposed facility costs of $200. /s/ Clovis Associates, and Inc. HydroResources It lists of Selectmen Chairman Board consulting engineering as a firm associated Frenchville, Maine 04745 project. states that the Town It The exhibit the affidavit is a second to discharge applies for a waste of Frenchville meeting the Board of minute of a of Select- al- ch. license under M.R.S.A. § be purporting men dated segment lowing discharge it to into signed the three members of the Board as B-2 located John River classified and St. reflects that a of Selectmen. The minute Frenchville, applicant (pre- at Maine. “. meeting at .. that passed motion was town) agrees submit sumably the therein accept of Board of Selectmen behalf plans specifications all and approval for Frenchville, the Town of agrees no work shall commenced operating of the sub-divi- receipt approval. an prior to of such (Em- sion road under conditions].” [certain “ap- signed by is as document phasis added.) specified condi- None of capacity “munici- plicant” and also in his as resolution pertinent tions indicating his status to be pal official” presently issues before the Court on The final exhibit of “First Selectman”. copy is a appeal. The third exhibit meeting is a minute of a the motion the July warrant for and the minutes of 24, 1975 dated June at of the voters of indicating that the Board had reviewed financing seek for the town voted to Special Town signed warrants for a facility through federal loans and July 1975. The Meeting to be held on bonds. See infra mem- signed by the three Board minute exhibit to the affidavit is fourth bers. stationery HydroResources letter on the in the Two counteraffidavits filed Associates, Stephen Inc. addressed defend- proceedings on behalf Groves, Division Licens- W. Chief ant. The first of these is affidavit ing Enforcement of the Bureau of there- The factual assertions plaintiff. in reference to Quality Water Control. It is issue contract pertinent are “Application Sanitary Waste Water Dis- formation are follows: License; charge Roland Sirais/Town of Frenchville, Frenchville, I contacted the Selectmen let- Maine.” The to see if would of Frenchville complete appli- ter states: “enclosed is the of the Town bring before the voters cation the name of the Town French- financing the Town would seek plans your ville. is a whether set of [E]nclosed to be for the construction purports records.” The letter Michaud, Hydro- one President of FHA. J. E. Associates, Copies Inc. Resources and meeting was called on 5. A town the letter are reflected to have been sent explained it was 1975 at which time Michaud, Daigle, Mr. Clovis Mrs. the town facili- voters that construction of the Sirois, manager, Dwight me; Mr. one Se- ty that the FHA costs; well. pay for the construction would *8 by paid for financing the would nine-page the doc- Attached to letter is approved arti- The user fees. voters “Application Sanitary ument entitled cle. License” out Discharge Waste Water made of Frenchville. in the name of the Town 1975, requested August In property the 7. That reflects that document the a letter from facility from the Selectmen on the is to be built is owned which evidencing their pro- Town of Frenchville by application then plaintiff.
299 agreement operate ty. to maintain and These sewers at the re- [sic] facility. quest paid Town provided This was to me and were part Roland August 12, Sirois of the construction facility. cost of the plaintiff’s Attached to the affidavit as an May, 7. In when Roland Sirois exhibit is a letter written stationery seeking financing was independent of the Office of the Selectmen addressed Town, agreed to maintain “To Whom It Concern” reference operate proposed sewage and treat- plans “Mr. Roland Sirois’ and Subdivision facility including sanitary ment sew- Facility, Waste Treatment also and main- Queen ers of Village Subdivision. taining plowing and the road.” The letter August, 1975, 8. after the voters part states in as follows: approved had fi- construction and Board of Selectmen has nancing facility, the selectmen re- behalf of Town of Frenchville the affirmed their to maintain responsibility maintaining operat- and sewage treatment facili- ing proposed sewage treatment facili- ty sanitary sewers. including ties the sanitary sewers. sys- 9. The construction of this sewer added.) (Emphasis signed by letter is sewage facility tem and treatment was a Florence Manager, H. Michaud “Town benefit to the Town of Frenchville in that Frenchville, Maine.” The second counteraf- the new residences constructed because of Daigle fidavit is one made availability considerably expanded its has certain attachments thereto. The affidavit the tax resulting base Frenchville sets forth that Mr. served as Select- increased It tax revenues to the Town. man of the Town of from 1963 by bring- further benifited the Town [sic] to March 1977and that he was Chairman of ing compli- least the Town the Board 1964 to March of 1977. The ance with Federal and environmen- State pertinent factual assertions contained disposal. tal regarding sewage laws purposes therein for present inquiry applied Depart- 10. The Town are as follows: ment of Environmental Protection for a 3. The Special Selectman called a Discharge facility Waste License for Meeting 2,1975. Town on July copyA granted Sep- the Town the Warrant and meeting Minutes of the tember 1975. A is attached copy concerning sewage plant treatment incorporated hereto as Exhibit B and systems sewer is attached hereto as herein reference. incorporated Exhibit A and herein ref- February, ap- 11. In F.H.A. erence. proved financing system of the sewer 2,1975 July meeting At the it was requested that the Vot- explained concerning to the voters Article ers of authoriza- Frenchville amend their 4 that system construction of the $35,000.00. tion for a loan Sirois; Roland user fees was Meeting was special 12. A Town paying financing; means of and that called on March 1977 and article pay would be to Roland July Article 4 of amend Sirois for the cost of the construction meeting was voted down voters. sewage sewer and 13. The voters of the French- 5. The Article was with ap- carried ville have never rescinded Article of proximately meeting. 90% of the in favor. July voters Hydroresources and Associates ren- affidavit a document Attached to the engineering dered services William J. Meeting Warrant” “Special labelled legal Smith concerning rendered services of the Board by the three members noticing Town’s for F.H.A. financ- municipality of Selectmen of ing licensing and the D.E.P. of the com- 1975. Article of: pleted Warrant reads as follows: treatment facili- *9 proper authorization existed for
To see if the town will instruct the Se- Whether
apply
lectmen to
to Farmers Home Ad-
subsequently
being
came into
that letter or
ministration and to secure loans or issue
by
the vote taken
the voters at
$50,-
herewith for
bonds
connection
2,1981
Special
Meeting
July
alone
000.00, for funds to meet Federal and
with other acts of the
combination
for the construc-
State Grants obtained
clearly
question
municipal officials is
Sewage
tion of
treatment fa-
Sewer
Raymond
In-
fact. Blue Rock Industries
cilities for the Town of Frenchville.
ternational, Inc., Me.,
301 Underwriters, English-American request Cox v. at the provided 245 license were 330, (9th municipality. 332-33 1957). F.2d Cir. of the insisted, may positively not be too it Daigle by signing 2. Whether [I]t a is not facile device elimination for the of his indicating letter 1975 congested complex calendars of as of capacity Chairman of the Board great (i.e., cases threaten a acted indi- to consume alone as an or for the entire Board vidual) of trial deal time. Nor is it instru- which, the commitment on the through judge making ment resort town there set forth.4 practical experience trial law- whose as a persuades will yer him that a suit sure- by the vote of 1975 3. Whether ly surely almost in a cer- out vot- Special Meeting at —or —turn way, may bring quickly tain and inex- ratify ers intended to a commitment pensively to such an end. Board of by the Selectmen operation and maintenance of the fa- Turnpike Contracting Yonkers Co. v. Maine by the cility town. Authority, (D.Me.1958). F.R.D. appli- 4. the submission of the Whether foregoing order determine from the discharge for the license was cation narrow issue there
facts the
of whether
act of
Board
the authorized
of the minds to a contract
Selectmen.
the defendant
agreed
to maintain
municipali-
5.
an intent
Whether
operate
facility,
it to
perceive
undertake
ty to
a commitment
necessary to resolve at least five issues of
is
maintain
dispute
fact which are in
record.
on this
totality
the acts
manifested
of
They are:
municipal
vot-
officers and the
1.Whether
Attorney
services of
all of the
ers under
circumstances.
HydroResources
Smith and of
in con-
nection with the
the facil-
planning
go
issues
to the
All of these
resolution
ity and the
obtaining
discharge
general
of a
issue that
lies at the heart
majority
doubt,
upon
great
4. The
relies
two cases for the
the court intimated
satisfactorily appear
“it
not
does
proposition
that “one member
a Board of
other member of
it,
Selectmen cannot bind
the town to
contract
saw or knew
or
the board ever
its contents
proved
his
unless
to act alone is
statements therein
Id.
ratified the
contained.”
subsequently
(At 294.)
his actions
ratified.”
at
carefully
at
99 A.
these,
The first
Prest
of Farm
v. Inhabitants
stated the rule of law on
The court
ington,
(1917),
It
genuine
majority,
seems clear to me that a
inappropriate.
issue
one of
of fact is thus
It is a
cases of
created.
material fact
Prest v. Inhabitants
Farming
ton,
because if
is resolved in
(1917)
that issue
favor of
Me. 99
653A.
and Inhabit
plaintiff,
Johnson,
a further inference is
ants
logically
of Richmond v.
fact August Michaud, that on Mrs. Manager,
a Town (Exhibit a letter A, plaintiff’s affidavit) under similar cir-
cumstances also stating that “the Board of
Selectmen” had responsibility for the maintenance operation of the facili- STATE of Maine ty. Both the Daigle and Michaud letters say the town will also maintain the roads
associated with the subdivision. This is Frank GIGLIO. consistent with the minutes of the meeting Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Board of May 1975 showing a vote constituting very justi- action and Argued Jan. fies an inference of the accuracy of the Decided Feb. other contents of the two letters.
The conclusion Daigle letter, that the
supported by the Michaud letters and other
factual data in the motion papers and rea- therefrom,
sonable inferences is evidence of
a commitment actually undertaken
Board of Selectmen and intended to be
binding town, oper- maintain and
ate the facility is directly refuted or by any
contradicted factual data or eviden-
tiary Thus, assertion in the papers. might seem that if summary judgment is any respect
in proper, should
have had summary judgment entered in his
favor on the issue of the existence of such a town,
commitment by the especially light
of the voters’ later vote to authorize the $50,000 funding
Board to seek for the
construction of the See M.E.Civ.P.
56(c). However, a disput- number of other issues,
ed factual besides that of whether
the town alleged made a commitment as
plaintiff, remain in this case. We cannot (nor
judge properly attempt should we so)
do to what extent the resolution of paragraph entirety agreed 6. That reads its as fol- the selectmen to maintain and proposed sewage lows: in- cluding sanitary Queen sewers of the May, 1975, 7. In when Roland Sirois was Village Subdivision. Town, seeking financing independent of the