Case Title: Goodwill v. Beaulieu

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017 ME 138

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2017-06-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 138 
Docket: 
Cum-16-415 
Argued: 
April 12, 2017 
Decided: 
June 27, 2017 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
GREG GOODWILL et al.  
 
v.  
 
BRIAN BEAULIEU JR. 
 
 
HJELM, J. 
[¶1]  Brian Beaulieu Jr. appeals from a judgment entered in the District 
Court (Portland, Woodman, J.) finding him liable to Greg Goodwill and Victoria 
Goodwill for having made fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations about 
certain amenities in a house that he sold to them, and awarding damages of 
$10,775.  As the sole issue on appeal, Beaulieu argues that the court erred by 
declining to reduce the damage award by the amount of the settlement 
between the Goodwills and the real estate agency that listed Beaulieu’s house.  
See 14 M.R.S. § 163 (2016).  Because Beaulieu did not present evidence on 
which the court could find that the settlement was for the same injury that 
resulted in the judgment entered against him, we affirm the judgment.  
 
2 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The following facts, found by the court, are supported by 
competent record evidence and undisputed by the parties on appeal.  See 
Graham v. Brown, 2011 ME 93, ¶ 2, 26 A.3d 823.  In April 2013, Victoria and 
Greg Goodwill saw a real estate listing for Beaulieu’s house located in South 
Portland.  As described in the listing, the house featured a hot tub and gas 
fireplace in the master bedroom area, and an outdoor kitchen.  The Goodwills 
visited the home several times.  On one visit when Beaulieu was also present, 
the Goodwills inquired about the “functionality of the pumps and jets on the 
hot tub,” and Beaulieu told them that the fixtures were in working order.  
Verbally and in a handwritten note, Beaulieu also indicated to the Goodwills 
that the fireplace and outdoor kitchen worked and could be used as soon as 
the Goodwills arranged for the gas to be turned on.  The Goodwills purchased 
the home and moved in on the day of the closing.   
[¶3]  After they purchased the house, the Goodwills encountered 
problems with the hot tub, the fireplace, and the outdoor kitchen.  The water 
heating system was inadequate to fill the hot tub with warm water, and they 
paid $3,900 for a heating and plumbing contractor to install a new water 
heater.  When the Goodwills tried to arrange for the gas service needed for the 
 
3 
fireplace and outdoor kitchen, the gas utility technician refused to install a gas 
meter because the pipes laid by Beaulieu did not meet code requirements.  
The Goodwills installed new pipes to connect the gas line to the home, work 
that the court determined to cost $4,200.  The Goodwills also discovered that 
the gas fireplace was not vented and could not be used safely or legally.  They 
obtained an estimate of approximately $6,500 for the work needed to fix that 
problem.   
[¶4]  In January 2015, the Goodwills filed a complaint against Beaulieu, 
alleging that he had fraudulently or negligently misrepresented the working 
condition of the hot tub, the gas fireplace, and the outdoor kitchen.  A bench 
trial was held in July 2016, at which all three parties testified.  Victoria was 
asked during Beaulieu’s cross-examination whether she had “recovered 
anything from anybody else regarding this situation.”  She responded that she 
had recovered from the real estate agency that had listed Beaulieu’s house 
“[b]ecause the information in the ad was not accurate, because those fixtures 
were not working.”  When she testified that she could not remember how 
much she had received because the settlement occurred several years ago, the 
Goodwills’ attorney volunteered that the settlement was for $5,000.  In his 
 
4 
summation, Beaulieu argued that the Goodwills’ award should be reduced by 
the $5,000 they received from the real estate agency.  
[¶5]  In a judgment issued on August 8, 2016, the court concluded that 
Beaulieu was liable for tortiously misrepresenting the condition of the 
outdoor kitchen and the fireplace.  The court did not find him liable with 
regard to the hot tub, however, because the court found Beaulieu had not 
represented to the Goodwills that the hot water supply was adequate but 
rather had “truthfully answered the only questions [the Goodwills] asked 
about the tub, regarding the jets and pump.”  The court awarded damages of 
$10,775 for the expense of rendering the fireplace and outdoor kitchen 
operational.1  The court declined to reduce the award by the amount of the 
Goodwills’ settlement with the real estate broker, explaining that the court 
“was not presented with evidence that [the Goodwills] were asserting the 
same damages against the brokerage as they asserted in this action.” 
[¶6]  Beaulieu timely appealed.   
                                         
1  The damages awarded by the court took into account a judgment issued for Beaulieu on his 
counterclaim, where he alleged that the Goodwills owed him $125 pursuant to an agreement under 
which they would sell an item of his property that he left behind at the residence.   
 
5 
II.  DISCUSSION 
 
[¶7]  Beaulieu asserts that pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 163, he was entitled 
to a $5,000 setoff against the amount of damages the court ordered him to pay 
to the Goodwills, based on their settlement in that amount with the real estate 
agency that listed his house.  The Goodwills do not challenge the premise of 
Beaulieu’s contention, which is that section 163 applies to a case of this 
nature.  Rather, the question presented to us is whether Beaulieu 
demonstrated to the trial court that there is an identity of injury addressed in 
the settlement and the judgment that entitles him to a setoff pursuant to 
section 163. 
[¶8]  Section 163 “provid[es] a mechanism of mandatory set-off of the 
consideration paid to the injured party by one tortfeasor in settlement or 
release of all claims against the amount received in a subsequent verdict 
against one or more of the other tortfeasors.”  Emery Waterhouse Co. v. Lea, 
467 A.2d 986, 996 (Me. 1983).  The statute provides in pertinent part: 
Whenever a person seeks recovery for a personal injury or 
property damage caused by 2 or more persons, the settlement 
with or release of one or more of the persons causing the injury is 
not a bar to a subsequent action against the other person or 
persons also causing the injury. 
 
Evidence of settlement with a release of one or more 
persons causing the injury is not admissible at a subsequent trial 
 
6 
against the other person or persons also causing the injury.  After 
the jury has returned its verdict, the trial judge shall inquire of the 
attorneys for the parties whether such a settlement or release has 
occurred.  If such settlement or release has occurred, the trial 
judge shall reduce the verdict by an amount equal to the 
settlement with or the consideration for the release of the other 
persons.  
 
14 M.R.S. § 163 (emphasis added).2  The statutory setoff is therefore a 
damages determination that the court must make in applicable cases after a 
verdict has been rendered.3  The setoff is required in all instances to which 
section 163 applies except where the released party is later determined at 
trial not to bear causative fault.  Mockus v. Melanson, 615 A.2d 245, 248 
(Me. 1992).  
                                         
2  The statute bars the admission of evidence of the settlement at the trial of the nonsettling 
defendant.  14 M.R.S. § 163 (2016).  Despite this provision, Beaulieu developed evidence of the 
settlement during his cross-examination of Victoria.  Then, not only did the Goodwills’ attorney not 
object, but he provided additional information to the court about the terms of the settlement.  Thus, 
the parties chose to present the settlement evidence during the trial instead of doing so in the 
manner prescribed by the statute, which is after the court has adjudicated the pending claims.  See 
id.  Because in a nonjury proceeding, such as this, the risk of unfair prejudice to any party from the 
improper manner of presenting the settlement evidence is remote in any event, the process that the 
parties chose to use is not material to our analysis. 
Additionally, section 163 obligates the trial court to inquire of the parties whether there has 
been a settlement between the claimant and any other responsible person or entity.  Here, the 
parties themselves initiated the presentation of that information to the court, making it 
unnecessary for the court to make the requisite inquiry.  No party has challenged that process, and 
because the parties had full opportunity to present the court with information bearing on the 
settlement, there can be no prejudice caused by any departure from this aspect of the statutory 
process. 
3  In his answer to the complaint, Beaulieu did not plead setoff as an affirmative defense.  He has 
not waived the benefit of section 163, however, because in cases where the statute applies, its 
invocation is mandatory.  See Mockus v. Melanson, 615 A.2d 245, 248 (Me. 1992). 
 
7 
[¶9]  Just as a party raising an issue that constitutes an avoidance of 
liability or that reduces damages bears the burden of proof on that issue, see 
Fitzgerald v. Hutchins, 2009 ME 115, ¶ 20 n.6, 983 A.2d 382; King v. Town of 
Monmouth, 1997 ME 151, ¶ 7, 697 A.2d 837, the party seeking to benefit from 
a section 163 setoff must demonstrate the existence of circumstances allowing 
for the setoff.  This means that Beaulieu was required to demonstrate that “the 
injury” that was the subject of the Goodwills’ settlement with the real estate 
agency was also “the injury” for which damages were awarded to the 
Goodwills in the judgment entered against him.  The existence and nature of a 
prior settlement for the same injury is a question of fact that the proponent 
must establish by a preponderance of the evidence.  Cf. Union River Assocs. v. 
Budman, 2004 ME 48, ¶ 19, 850 A.2d 334 (stating that the “existence of an 
accord and satisfaction is a question of fact”).  We will overturn the court’s 
finding that led to its rejection of Beaulieu’s claim for a setoff only if Beaulieu 
“can demonstrate that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence.”  
Gravison v. Fisher, 2016 ME 35, ¶ 31, 134 A.3d 857 (quotation marks omitted).  
[¶10]  The only evidence regarding the scope of the settlement 
agreement between the Goodwills and the real estate agency was developed 
during Victoria’s trial testimony.  When Beaulieu examined her, asking 
 
8 
whether she “recovered anything from anybody else regarding this situation,” 
she responded that she had settled with Beaulieu’s real estate agency 
“[b]ecause the information in the ad was not accurate, because those fixtures 
were not working.”  (Emphases added.)    
[¶11]  In its judgment, the court found Beaulieu liable for 
misrepresentations relating to only two of the three amenities at issue: the 
fireplace and outdoor kitchen.  Beaulieu was found to be not liable for any 
problem with the third amenity, namely, the hot tub.  In contrast, Victoria’s 
testimony indicated that the settlement was for problems with all three 
fixtures: she agreed that the settlement arose from “this situation”—meaning 
the same set of claims asserted against Beaulieu—and she stated that the 
dispute with the real estate agency, resolved by the settlement, related to 
problems with “those fixtures [that] were not working,” which would include 
the hot tub.  
[¶12]  The sole description of the settlement presented to the court 
therefore demonstrates that the settlement covered an injury—namely, the 
defective operation of the hot tub—for which Beaulieu was found to be not 
liable.  In rejecting Beaulieu’s argument that he was entitled to a setoff, the 
court reasoned that he had not demonstrated that the claim the Goodwills 
 
9 
“were asserting” against him was identical to the claim that they had settled 
with the real estate agency.  This miscasts the basis for a section 163 setoff, 
which is a settlement for the same injury—as distinguished from the same 
claim—for which the non-settling party was later found liable.  The erroneous 
characterization of the inquiry is harmless, however, because Victoria’s 
testimony established that the injury addressed in the settlement went 
beyond that for which the court held Beaulieu liable.  Because as a matter of 
law Beaulieu was not entitled to the setoff, the court did not err by declining 
to reduce the amount of the judgment by the amount of the settlement.  
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Peter M. McGee, Esq. (orally), South Portland, for appellant Brian Beaulieu, Jr.  
 
David J. Van Dyke, Esq. (orally), Lynch & Van Dyke P.A., Lewiston, for 
appellees Greg Goodwill and Victoria Goodwill 
 
 
Portland District Court docket number CV-2015-32 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY