STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT 

CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION 

DOCKET NO. CV 23-321 

MUSSEL COVE MARINE LLC 

V. 

CLAPBOARD ISLAND HOLDINGS, LLC 

ORDER 

Before the court is Plaintiffs Motion for an Ex Parte Motion for Attachment against 

property of Defendants. The court is unwilling to decide the Motion on an ex parte basis, 

leaving the motion undecided until Defendants have had a right to be heard. 

The initial question is whether the court is prepared to grant the motion ex parte, meaning 

without giving Defendants a right to be heard. For an ex parte attachment, Rule 4A(g) sets a 

high bar. 

When a plaintiff seeks to obtain an attachment order on an ex parte basis, Rule 4A(g) 

requires the plaintiff to establish the same likelihood of success as with 

an attachment pursuant to Rule 4A( c ), but also requires the plaintiff to establish that 

"there is a clear danger that the defendant if notified in advance of attachment ofthe 

property will remove it from the state or will conceal it or will otherwise make it 

unavailable to satisfy a judgment" or that "there is immediate danger that the defendant 

will damage or destroy the property to be attached." M.R. Civ. P. 4A(g); see Fuentes v. 

Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1972) (stating that due process 

requires notice and a hearing before depriving a person of a property interest, except for 

extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies 

postponing the hearing until after the event. (quotation marks omitted)). It is this third 

requirement that allows a plaintiff seeking an attachment to obtain relief with an 

"extraordinary" process that permits the bypass of what otherwise is required, i.e., notice 

to the other party or pmties. 

Estate a/Summers v. Nisbet, 2016 ME 88, ,r 8. 

Here, the only evidence suggesting that Defendants will destroy or make property 

unavailable is I. Defendants have a history of default with respect to this contract, 2. Plaintiffs 

1 REC'D CUMB CLERKS OFC 

SEP 8 '23 AM8:35 
"knowledge of [Defendants'] past behavior and 3. Defendants "have taken steps to liquidate" the 

Maine real estate. The Plaintiff provided substantial evidence of a hist01y of default, but that does 

not translate into immediate danger that property will be made unavailable. The court has 

insufficient knowledge of "past behavior" warranting an ex parte attachment. Finally, other than 

a hearsay statement from an unidentified individual, there is no evidence regarding the impending 

sale of the property. There is no information regarding to what degree Defendants have acted to 

sell the property. 

The court appreciates that the Plaintiff is concerned that Defendants will make the property 

unavailable to satisfy judgment and an attachment may be appropriate. The court does not have 

sufficient evidence, however, that notice of this motion would cause Defendants to convey 

property for the purpose of making it unavailable for judgment that would allow the court to 

deprive them of a constitutional right to be heard. 

Therefore, the court denies the Motion for Attachment to the extent it asks the court to 

decide the motion ex parte. The motion remains pending and Defendants will have 21 days to 

respond after service of this order, the Complaint and the motion on them. 

This Order is incorporated on the docket by reference pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a). 

DATE: -+.Cf,,_/~7-/--"'V___.:3c__ 

Thomas R. McKeon 

Justice, Maine Superior Court 

2