Title: Lloyd v. Robbins

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
 
 
 
     
    Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2012 ME 137 
Docket: 
Han-12-74 
Argued: 
November 8, 2012 
Decided: 
December 13, 2012 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN and JABAR, 
JJ. 
 
 
DAVID S. LLOYD et al. 
 
v. 
 
ESTATE OF ANNABELLE E. ROBBINS 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
 
 
[¶1]  The Estate of Annabelle E. Robbins appeals from a judgment of the 
Superior Court (Hancock County, Cuddy, J.) finding that Robbins breached 
implied covenants in her deed when she sold land to David and Vickie Lloyd in 
January 2000.  This is the Estate’s second appeal. 
[¶2]  In 2009, Annabelle Robbins’s Estate first appealed from a judgment 
finding that she had breached the covenants contained in the deed.  Lloyd v. Estate 
of Robbins, 2009 Me. Super. LEXIS 47 (Mar. 10, 2009).  In 2010, we vacated the 
court’s judgment, applied a six-year statute of limitations, and remanded the case 
for the court to determine when the statute of limitations began to run.  Lloyd v. 
Estate of Robbins, 2010 ME 59, ¶¶ 18, 20-24, 997 A.2d 733.  On remand, the court 
found that the limitations period began when the court, in separate litigation, 
 
2 
awarded a portion of the land to the abutting landowners in June 2005.  See Lloyd 
v. Benson, 2006 ME 129, ¶¶ 15-17, 910 A.2d 1048, aff’g 2005 Me. Super. 
LEXIS 34 (Feb. 3, 2005) (awarding title to three acres to the abutting landowners). 
[¶3]  The Estate argues that the trial court erred in finding that the six-year 
statute of limitations had not expired.  We conclude that the court did not err in 
finding that the neighboring landowners had not evicted the Lloyds and that the 
Lloyds were not dispossessed of the land until the court awarded title to the 
neighbors in June 2005.  See McCormick v. Crane, 2012 ME 20, ¶ 7, 37 A.3d 295 
(noting that the covenant of warranty is breached upon eviction, which occurs 
when there is a “disturbance of title or possession by a paramount title” (quotation 
marks omitted)); cf. Montgomery v. Reed, 69 Me. 510, 515 (1879) (discussing the 
requirements for eviction from an easement by physical disturbance of possession).  
Therefore, the court properly found that the statute of limitations had not expired at 
the time when the Lloyds filed their complaint alleging Robbins’s breach.  See 
14 M.R.S. § 752 (2011) (setting out a six-year statute of limitations for civil 
actions). 
 
[¶4]  The Estate also contends that the court erred in finding that the 
neighboring landowners never possessed or occupied the disputed land and that it 
misquoted the neighbor’s testimony in its decision.  We conclude that the court’s 
misstatement was harmless.  See M.R. Civ. P. 61.  Although the Estate argues that 
 
3 
the evidence in the record demonstrates that the neighbors used the disputed land 
in conducting a survey in 1959 and occupying a house in the northwest corner, the 
court’s judgment relied instead on the neighbors’ failure to provide a clear marker 
of what land they claimed after the Lloyds’ purchase in January 2000.  See 
Mulready v. Bd. of Real Estate Appraisers, 2009 ME 135, ¶ 20, 984 A.2d 1285 
(holding that where an erroneous finding is not a basis for the court’s opinion and 
the court supports its judgment with other sufficient evidence, the error is 
harmless). 
[¶5]  Finally, the Estate argues that the court erred in awarding damages in 
the amount agreed to by the parties in a stipulated judgment because we vacated 
that judgment in 2010.  See Lloyd v. Estate of Robbins, 2010 ME 59, ¶ 24, 
997 A.2d 733.  The court did not abuse its discretion, however, because the Estate 
failed to present any evidence that the stipulated damages were manifestly unjust 
and should be set aside.  See MP Assocs. v. Liberty, 2001 ME 22, ¶ 29, 
771 A.2d 1040 (“A stipulation should be adhered to unless it becomes apparent 
that it may inflict a manifest injustice upon one of the contracting parties or where 
it becomes evident that the agreement was made under a clear mistake.” (quotation 
marks omitted)). 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the briefs: 
 
Barry K. Mills, Esq., Hale & Hamlin, LLC, Ellsworth, for appellant Estate 
of Annabelle E. Robbins 
 
William B. Devoe, Esq., and Megan E. Randlett, Esq., Eaton Peabody, P.A., 
Bangor, for appellees David S. Lloyd and Vickie R. Lloyd 
 
 
At oral argument: 
 
Barry K. Mills, Esq., for appellant Estate of Annabelle E. Robbins 
 
William B. Devoe, Esq., appellees David S. Lloyd and Vickie R. Lloyd 
 
 
 
Hancock County Superior Court docket number RE-2008-2 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY