STATE OF MAINE 

CUMBERLAND, ss. 

APPLEGATE ASSOCIATION NO. 1, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

MARJORIE COLLINS, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

SUPERIOR COURT 

CIVIL ACTION 

Docket No. RE-2021-057 

) ORDER ON DAMAGES, ATTORNEY 

) FEES, AND COSTS 

) 

) 

) 

) 

This matter is before the Court following an evidentiary hearing on damages on 

March 13, 2023. The Court awards Plaintiff Applegate Association No. 1 ("the 

Association") damages, attorney fees, and costs as follows. 

I. Background 

Defendant Marjorie Collins owns a condominium unit within the Association. 

This case arose when she installed a gas line to service her unit without prior approval of 

the Board of Directors of the Association ("the Board"). By Order dated November 18, 

2022, the Court entered summary judgment for the Association and against Mrs. Collins 

on all counts of the Association's Complaint and Mrs. Collins's Counterclaim, except as 

to the issue of damages on Counts III and IV of the Complaint. Count III is a claim for 

reimbursement of the cost of removing and reinstalling the gas line. Count IV is a claim 

for fines assessed by the Association against Mrs. Collins. 

At the damages hearing, the Association presented the testimony of MaryEllen 

Joyce, Vice President of the Board, and Steve Caiazzo, a master plumber and licensed gas 

technician. Mrs. Collins introduced her own testimony and the testimony of Beau 

Atwater-Wood, a master plumber and gas line technician. 

Page 1 of 9 
The Association submitted Attorney John Turcotte's fee affidavit in support of its 

request for an award of attorney fees and costs. Mrs. Collins was given an opportunity, 

post-hearing, to respond in writing on the issue of attorney fees. 

II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Based on the testimony and exhibits admitted at hearing, the Court makes the 

following findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

A. Cost of Removal and Reinstallation 

Mr. Caiazzo testified that he estimated the cost of removing and reinstalling the 

gas line would be approximately $2,000.00. Mr. Atwater-Wood testified that he had 

previously provided an estimate of $750.00, but that the cost would have increased in the 

time since he provided the estimate. He estimated that the cost at the time of the hearing 

would be about $1,000.00. Mr. Atwater-Wood said that he would not be surprised, based 

on his experience, if another local plumber quoted $2,000.00 for the work. He also said 

that he would no longer perform work within the Association at his regular rate. 

Based on the testimony of Mr. Atwater-Wood and Mr. Caiazzo, both experienced 

plumbers and gas technicians, the Court finds that Mr. Caiazzo' s estimate of $2,000.00 for 

the removal and reinstallation of the gas line is reasonable. The Association is entitled to 

judgment in that amount on Count III of the Complaint. 

B. Fines 

As declared in the Court's Order on the parties' cross motions for summary 

judgment, the Association has the authority to levy a reasonable fine for violations of the 

Association's Declaration, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations. See 33 M.R.S. §1603-

102(11). Section 5.3(d) of the Bylaws provides that $50.00 is the maximum daily fine the 

Board is authorized to levy for an ongoing violation. 

Page2 of 9 
On April 10, 2021, the Board sent a letter to Mrs. Collins notifying her of the 

violation and setting a thirty-day deadline to submit a plan to remedy the violation. When 

she failed to comply, the Board voted to impose a daily fine of $50.00 per day, 

commencing on July 13, 2021, until the violation was remedied. Ms. Joyce testified that 

the Board did not consider setting the daily fine at less than the maximum authorized. 

She testified that the Board imposed the fine to compel Mrs. Collins to comply. 

Mrs. Collins argues that the Board was motivated by racial bias when it voted to 

impose the maximum daily fine and that the fine was, therefore, unreasonable. Mrs. 

Collins explained that she believed other decisions, such as the Board's vote to remove 

her as hospitality chair, were motivated by racial animus because she could not think of 

any other reason for the adverse decisions. Other than her own suspicions, the only 

evidence of racial bias that Mrs. Collins put forth was a comment made by one member 

of the Board shortly after Mrs. Collins moved into her home.1 This comment was not 

connected in time to Mrs. Collins's application to install a gas line or the Board's vote to 

impose fines. There was, therefore, insufficient evidence that racial bias existed among 

Board members when the Board voted to assess a daily fine against Mrs. Collins.2 

However, considering the relatively minor impact of Mrs. Collins's violation, 

selecting the maximum fine was not reasonable. There is no evidence in the record to 

support imposing the maximum fine. The Court finds that a daily fine of no more than 

$25.00 is reasonable under the circumstances. See 48 Bramhall St. Condo. Ass'n v. Stone, No. 

RE-13-150, 2014 Me. Super. LEXIS 120, at *18-19 (June 13, 2014) (noting that imposition of 

a $25.00 fine for violation of rules and regulations is common practice among 

1 The Board member commented that she thought property values would decline because an Asian person 

had moved into the neighborhood. 2 As the Court ruled at hearing, evidence that Mrs. Collins sought to introduce regarding denial of a 

subsequent application to renovate the second floor of her unit more than a year later is irrelevant. 

Page3 of 9 
condominium associations, but expressing concern about the absence of a maximum total 

penalty in connection with a $25.00 per day fine). 

Moreover, the Court will not award the fines that accrued during the pendency of 

this suit. A fine that stifles one's right to access the courts is not reasonable. See Stonington 

Landing Condo. Ass'n v. Toto/is, No. CV075003218S, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3398, at *26 

(Dec. 16, 2009). To avoid imposing a penalty for Mrs. Collins's exercise of her right to 

contest this suit, the Court will award a daily fine only for the twenty-seven days between 

July 13, 2021, and August 9, 2021, the date of the Association's Complaint. Accordingly, 

the Court finds that the Association may recover $675.00 for daily fines imposed on Mrs. 

Collins for violation of the Bylaws. 

C. Attorney Fees 

The Association requests an award of reasonable attorney fees. In support, the 

Association submitted an affidavit of John Turcotte, with a letter of engagement and 

invoices attached. 

The Association is entitled to reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Section 5.3(d) 

of the Bylaws. The following factors are relevant to determining a reasonable award of 

attorney fees: 

(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the 

questions presented; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services; (4) 

the preclusion of other employment by the attorneys due to acceptance of 

the case; (5) the customary fee in the community; (6) whether the fee is fixed 

or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by client or circumstances; 

(8) the degree of success; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the 

attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of 

the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar 

cases. 

Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor, 2017 ME 128, 'I[ 15, 165 A.3d 357 (quoting Gould v. 

A-1 Auto, Inc., 2008 ME 65, 'I[ 13,945 A.2d 1225). 

Counsel's hourly rate is $285.00, which the Court finds reasonable based on the 

Page4 of 9 
skill required, counsel's degree of success, and counsel's experience and reputation, 

among other factors. The Supplemental Fee Affidavit of Attorney Turcotte states that the 

invoices attached to the first fee affidavit total $27,903.00. The Court agrees with 

Defendant, however, that the total amount billed for services rendered, as reflected in the 

invoices, was $27,618.00.3 

Mrs. Collins does not dispute that the Association is entitled to reasonable attorney 

fees. Nor does she contend that counsel's hourly rate is unreasonable or that the time 

billed for any specific task was unreasonable. Instead, Mrs. Collins takes issue with 

counsel's billing practices. She criticizes some entries as "block billing" and others as 

vague or imprecise. She asks the Court to make no award for any of the entries she 

challenges or, in the alternative, to discount the fees to account for possible inaccuracies. 

"Block billing," also referred to as "lumping," is the practice of listing an entire 

day's tasks related to a case in one time-entry rather than itemizing specific tasks. See 

Robinson v. City of Edmond, 160 F.3d 1275, 1284 n.9 (10th Cir. 1998). Block billing justifies 

a reduction of the award when its appears that an attorney may be claiming 

compensation for tasks that would not otherwise be compensable or if it is difficult to 

gauge the reasonableness of the time billed for the described tasks. See Ceres Env't Servs. 

v. Colonel Mccrary Trucking, LLC, 476 F. App'x 198, 203 (11th Cir. 2012) (reducing total 

award by ten percent because block billing made it "difficult for the court to gauge 

reasonableness"); In re Leonard Jed Co., 103 B.R. 706, 713 (Bankr. D. Md. 1989) (describing 

reasons for disallowance of "lumping" entries by bankruptcy courts). 

3 The Court is unable to account for the discrepancy of $285.00 between the Association's calculation and 

the Court's (and Mrs. Collins's) calculation. Other items appear on the invoices, including some the costs 

that the Association seeks to recover (sheriff costs, filing fees, etc.), as well as other expenses that the 

Association has not expressly claimed. The invoices also reflect a $2,000.00 "courtesy discount." The 

expenses and discount, however, do not account for the discrepancy. 

Page5 of 9 
Most of the cases Mrs. Collins cites involve egregious block billing.4 See, e.g., Ceres 

Env't Servs., 476 F. App'x at 203 (reducing award by ten percent because of "vague" 

entries for "half a dozen or more separate tasks"); Architectural Ingenieria Siglo v. Domican 

Republic, No. 13-20544-CIV, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178904, at *20 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2020) 

(reducing award by fifteen percent because of "[c]onsiderable" block billing in time 

records that were reconstructed years after the fact); Est. of Shultz v. Potter, No. 05-1169, 

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19850, at* 13 (W.D. Penn. Mar. 5, 2010) (disallowing block billing 

of fifty-two hours for "amount of time spent on briefs, petitions ... " on "various dates"). 

Of the entries Mrs. Collins identifies as block-billing, the largest entry is for 3.7 

hours on February 3, 2023, for "Telephone conference with client; Work on Witness and 

Exhibit list; Prepare Motion in Limine; Correspondences with Attorney Kennedy 

regarding." Including that entry, the Court has found only four problematic entries: 2.10 

hours on August 4, 2021, for "Finalize Complaints; Prepare Clerk's Certificate; 

Correspondences with client regarding status and the inherent lien available under the 

Maine Condominium Act"; 2.6 hours on July 21, 2022 for "Prepare for and attend 

discovery conference; Telephone conference with and correspondences to Attorney 

Kennedy; Prepare proposed Order; Correspondence to Clerk of Court; Follow up with 

client"; and 2.8 hours on February 21, 2023 for "Correspondences with client; Prepare for 

damages hearing; Prepare trial memorandum; Amend Exhibit List." 

The number of distinct tasks listed in each of these time entries and the vagueness 

of some of the described tasks makes it difficult for the Court to determine whether all of 

4 Although the Association correctly notes that Mrs. Collins did not cite any case from Maine or the United 

States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit criticizing block billing or reducing an award because of block 

billing, the Court did find a few such cases. See, e.g., Heien v. Archstone, 837 F.3d 97, 102 (1st Cir. 2016) 

(upholding district judge's reduction of attorney fee award for block billing); Torres-Rivera v. O'Neill-Cancel, 

524 F.3d 331,340 (1st Cir. 2008) (holding that lower court's reduction of attorney fee award for block billing 

was not an abuse of discretion); Callaghan v. City of South Portland, No. CV-11-428, 2014 Me. Super. LEXIS 

78, at *8 n.4 (Mar. 31, 2014) (describing block billing as a "problem"). 

Page 6 of 9 
the time billed was reasonably expended. To account for this, the Court will reduce the 

award for these entries by twenty-five percent, or $798.00.5 These four entries do not, 

however, justify an across-the-board reduction. Although the other entries Mrs. Collins 

challenges for block billing may include time for two or three related tasks, they do not 

suffer from the same lack of clarity as the entries described above. 

Mrs. Collins also identifies many other entries that she contends are too vague or 

imprecise. Entries need not be perfectly precise, however; the issue is whether a court is 

able to determine from the description whether the time was reasonably expended. 

Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 111 F. Supp. 2d 381, 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ("If the time records lack 

such specificity that the court is unable to determine a proper fee allocation, then 

plaintiffs' fee recovery may be reduced."); Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 172-173 

(2d Cir. 1998) (upholding twenty percent reduction in attorney fees award for "vague" 

entries such as "letter to court," "staff conference," and "work on motion"). 

Most of the entries Mrs. Collins contends are too vague concern the parties' cross 

motions for summary judgment. Although the several entries that read "work on MSJ" 

or "continue work on MSJ" are not models of precision, the subject matter of the work is 

apparent. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 n.12 (1983) ("Plaintiff's counsel, of 

course, is not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time was 

expended. But at least counsel should identify the general subject matter of his time 

expenditures."), superseded in part by statute, Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 

104-134, tit. VIII, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (codified at 41 U.S.C. § 1997e). As compared to the 

"work on motion" entry that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 

found too vague, "work on MSJ" at least specifies the motion, which is helpful for 

5 By the Court's calculations, these four entries total 11.2 hours at a rate of $285.00, or $3,192.00. Twentyfive percent of $3,192.00 is $798.00. 

Page 7 of 9 
determining whether the time was reasonably expended. The time billed for those entries, 

individually and cumulatively, is reasonable. 

Other entries Mrs. Collins challenges are not at all vague. For example, she 

challenges an entry for 3.10 hours from September 27, 2022 for "Prepare Affidavits of 

Robert Hammer and John Turcotte in support of MSJ" and an entry for 0.7 hour from 

October 6, 2022, for "Begin work on Opposing Material Facts." The time billed for these 

entries is reasonable. 

The Court has reviewed each remaining entry and did not find any to be 

unreasonable for the task or tasks described. The Association has demonstrated that it is 

entitled to an award of $26,820.00 for reasonable attorney fees. Cf Villas by the Sea Owners 

Ass'n v. Garrity, No. CV-96-430, 2000 Me. Super. LEXIS 273, at *6 (Dec. 20, 2000) (awarding 

$15,031.90 for attorney fees to condominium unit owners who prevailed against 

condominium association in action regarding fines for alleged violation of bylaws). 

D. Costs 

The Association also seeks to recover $515.34 for sheriff costs, a witness fee, and 

filing fees. As the prevailing party, the Association is entitled to recover these costs. M.R. 

Civ. P. 54(d). 

III. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in its favor in the 

amounts of $2,000.00 and $675.00 on Counts III and IV of the Complaint, respectively. 

Plaintiff is also awarded $515.34 in costs and $26,820.00 in attorney fees. 

The entry is: 

1. On Count III of Plaintiff Applegate Association No. l's Complaint, judgment is 

entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Marjorie Collins in the amount of 

$2,000.00 plus interest; 

Page 8 of 9 
2. On Count IV of Plaintiff's Complaint, judgment is entered for Plaintiff and 

against Defendant in the amount of $675.00 plus interest; 

3. Plaintiff is awarded $515.34 in costs; and 

4. Plaintiff is awarded $26,820.00 in attorney fees. 

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference 

pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a). 

Dated: Opd J ~' )WJ 

Page 9 of9 
STATE OF MAINE 

CUMBERLAND, ss. 

APPLEGATE ASSOCIATION NO. 1, 

V. 

Plaintiff/ Counterclaim 

Defendant, 

MARJORIE COLLINS, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant/ Counterclaim ) 

Plaintiff. ) 

SUPERIOR COURT 

CIVIL ACTION 

Docket No. RE-2021-057 

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

REC'D cu~~1B CLERKS rn=-c 

~~~[il} i8 '22 PM2:()4 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff/ Counterclaim Defendant Applegate 

Association No. l's ("the Association") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and 

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Marjorie Collins's ("Mrs. Collins") Motion for 

Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, the Court grants the Association's 

Motion and denies Mrs. Collins' s Motion. 

I. Background 

The following is drawn from the parties' statements of material facts. The 

Association owns certain real property in Falmouth, Maine. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. ']I 3; Pl.'s 

Add'l S.M.F. ']I 3.) Mrs. Collins owns Unit 31 in Building Cluster No. 11 within the 

Association by way of deed recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds at 

Book 36210, Page 92. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. <JI 5; Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. <JI 1; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. 

<JI 5.) 

All units within the condominium, including Mrs. Collins' s, are subject to the 

Declaration, as amended and restated, recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of 

Deeds at Book 36945, Page 40, as well as the Plats, Bylaws, and all properly promulgated 
Rules and Regulations (the Declaration, Plats, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations 

collectively, the "Governing Documents"). (PL's Supp'g S.M.F. <[ 4; Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 

<_[ 2; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. <[ 4.) Declaration§ 5.2 provides that the Board of Directors ("the 

Board") shall govern the affairs of the Association. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. <[ 20; Pl.'s Add'l 

S.M.F. <[ 14.) 

In September 2020, Mrs. Collins notified the Board that she was planning to install 

gas heat to her unit.1 (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. c_![ 26; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. <_[ 20.) The Board 

provided Mrs. Collins with forms for an application for approval of the project. (Pl.'s 

Supp'g S.M.F. <[ 30; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. <_[ 24.) Mrs. Collins submitted a partial application. 

(Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. <[ 31; Pl.'s Add'I S.M.F. <_[ 25.} 

In early January 2021, Mrs. Collins retained the services of Beau J. Atwater-Wood 

of Redwood Plumbing and Heating to install a gas line to her unit. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. <[ 

35; Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. <_[ 4; Def.'s Add'l S.M.F. <[ 1; Pl.'s Add'I S.M.F. <_[ 29.) Although 

Mr. Atwater-Wood had initially proposed running the gas line through the garage, Mrs. 

Collins and Mr. Atwater-Wood arrived at a different configuration for the gas line after 

discussing Mrs. Collins's plans for modifications to the interior of her unit, practical 

considerations, and safety considerations. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. <_[<_[ 40-41; Def.'s Resp. Pl.'s 

Supp'g S.M.F. <_[<[ 40-41; Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. <_[<[ 9-12; Def.'s Add'l S.M.F. <_[<JI 6-9; Pl.'s 

Add'l S.M.F. <_[<_[ 34-36.) The configuration involved running a gas line six feet up the 

exterior face of the building, approximately ten feet across the face of the building and 

over the door, then approximately eight feet down the building's face parallel to the door 

before entering the unit. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. <JI 42; Def.'s Resp. Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. <JI 42.} 

1 Mrs. Collins denies several admissible statements of material fact without providing a record citation. 

Each of those statements is deemed admitted by Mrs. Collins. See M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(2), (4). 

Page 2 of 13 
Sometime around the first week of January 2021, Mrs. Collins installed her gas 

line. (PI.1s Supp'g S.M.F. 'iI 36; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. 'iI 30.) Mr. Atwater-Wood affixed the gas 

line to the exterior face of the building with clamps screwed into the exterior with twelve 

drywall screws and secured by split rings and F&M plates. 2 (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'iJ:9[ 43, 

44; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. 'iI 38.) Mr. Atwater-Wood testified that to affix the gas piping, he 

screwed through the siding into the plywood beneath and into the drywall beyond the 

plywood. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'iI 45; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. 9I 39.) Mr. Atwater-Wood also 

drilled a hole at the end of the exterior gas piping through the exterior siding, plywood, 

and drywall. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'iI 48; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. 9I 42.) 

The gas line, which services only Mrs. Collins' s unit, was installed to service a gas 

range and gas fireplace within Mrs. Collins's unit. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. cir 37; Pl.'s Add'l 

S.M.F. 9I 31; Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 9I 6; Def.'s Add'l S.M.F. 9I 3.) The gas line was safely 

installed. (Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 9I 8; Def.'s Add'l S.M.F. 9I 5.) 

Mrs. Collins did not submit a complete application to the Board before 

commencing the work, nor did she provide notice to the Board as to the timing of the 

work to be performed. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 9[9[ 51, 52; Def.'s Resp. Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. 9I 52; 

Pl.'sAdd'l S.M.F. 9ICJI 45, 46.) Mrs. Collins stated that she "assumed that [the] maintenance 

request was approved by the Board." (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. cir 55; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. 9I 49.) 

Section 3.4 of the Declaration provides: 

Subject to the provisions of this Declaration, the Bylaws, and the Rules and 

Regulations of the Association, a Unit Owner may make nonstructural 

improvements and alterations within the interior of the Unit without 

approval of the Association. 

2 Paragraphs 11-14, 46, 47, 49, and 50 of the Association's Supporting Statement of Material Facts and 

paragraphs 9, 11, 12, and 22 of the Association's Additional Statement of Material Facts constitute legal 

conclusions and will not be considered. The portion of paragraph 53 of the Association's Supporting 

Statement of Material Facts that contains a legal conclusion wiU not be considered. Similarly, paragraphs 7 

and 14 of Mrs. Collins' s Supporting Statement of Material Facts and paragraphs 4 and 11 of Mrs. Collins' s 

Additional Statement of Material Facts will not be considered because they contain legal conclusions. 

Page 3 of 13 
Any alteration or improvement which is structural or which does not 

conform with the provisions in the previous sentence may be made only 

with the written approval of the Board of Directors. Applications for such 

alterations or improvements shall be made in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in § 4.3 herein. Alterations or improvements outside 

the boundaries of the Unit, as defined in § 3.2, also shall require written 

approval of the Board of Directors after application made in accordance 

with§ 4.3. 

(Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 6; Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 18; Def.'s Add'! S.M.F. 'l[ 16; Pl.'s Add'! 

S.M.F. 'l[ 8.) Similarly, Declaration§ 4.3 provides in part: 

No Unit Owner shall alter any portion of the Common Elements, including 

the Limited Common Elements, without the express written permission of 

the Board of Directors. Prohibited alterations without Board consent 

include exterior paint, exterior doors, replacement windows, addition of a 

second story, alteration of a garage or basement, and all other alterations or 

additions to the portions of the Property considered Common or Limited 

Common Elements. 

(Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 15; Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 19; Def.'s Add'! S.M.F. 'l[ 17.) 

Declaration § 4.1 defines the "Common Elements" as "all of the Property, 

excluding the Units." (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 9; Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 20; Def.'s Add'! 

S.M.F. 'l[ 18; Pl.'s Add'! S.M.F. 'l[ 6.) Declaration§ 1.1 defines "the Property" as the "metes 

and bounds description of the real property and buildings and improvements provided 

as Exhibit A to the Declaration." (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 10; Pl.'s Add'! S.M.F. 'l[ 7.) Section 

3.2 of the Declaration defines the boundaries of a Unit: 

(a) The upper horizontal boundary is the unfinished/undecorated lower 

interior side of the wallboard, gypsum, or other surface attached to the 

lower edge of the second floor or attic joists. 

(b) The lower horizontal boundary is the unfinished/undecorated interior 

side of the subflooring or material attached to the top edge of the floor joists 

or any concrete floor slab. 

(c) The vertical boundaries are the unfinished/undecorated interior side of 

the wallboard, gypsum, or other surface attached to the inner edge of the 

exterior wall studs, interior surfaces of exterior doors, windows, skylights, 

and glass walls, and the unfinished/undecorated surface of party walls 

between abutting Units. 

Page 4 of 13 
By way of example and not of limitation, specific components of Units 

include interior partitions, finished flooring or floor covering ... and gas 

lines servicing Unit equipment and systems, even if any portions of such 

lines or systems are located outside of the Unit boundaries, provided that 

they do not service another Unit. 

Any portion of the utility system or other apparatus serving more than one 

Unit (e.g., pipes, conduits, ducts) which is partially within and partially 

without the Unit, is part of the Common Elements. 

(Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l['l[ 7, 8; Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 17; Def.'s Add'! S.M.F. 'l[ 15.) 

Declaration§ 5.3 authorizes the adoption of Rules and Regulations pertaining "to 

the operation, use, appearance, and occupancy of the Units and Common Elements." 

(Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 21; Pl.'s Add'! S.M.F. 'l[ 15.) The most current version of the Rules 

and Regulations was adopted in June 2020. (PL's Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 22.; Pl.'s Add'! S.M.F. 

'l[ 16.) Rule and Regulation III provides: 

Owners are permitted to make alterations to the interior of their personal 

unit without having to seek the permission of the Board of Directors 

provided those alterations have no effect on the structure and are confined 

to the interior space. If the alterations affect the structure or the exterior 

appearance in any way, then a Request for Alteration/Maintenance must 

be submitted to the Alterations and Maintenance Committee with plans 

and contractor information for evaluation and recommendation for 

approval/ denial by the Board of Directors. 

(Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. 'l[ 23; Pl.'s Add'! S.M.F. 'l[ 17.) 

Section 5.3(d) of the Bylaws provides: 

The violation of any rule or regulation adopted by the Association, or the 

breach of any Bylaw, or the breach of any provision of the Declaration shall 

give the Directors the right, in addition to any other rights set forth in these 

Bylaws: 

(1) After reasonable written notice and opportunity for the Owner to 

remedy the violation, to enter the Unit in which, or as to which, such 

violation or breach exists and to summarily abate and remove, at the 

expense of the defaulting member, any structure, thing or condition that 

may exist therein contrary to the intent and meaning of the provisions 

hereof, and the Board of Directors shall not thereby be deemed guilty in any 

Page 5 of 13 
manner of trespass provided, however, the Board of Directors shall not alter 

or demolish any items of construction before instituting appropriate 

judicial proceedings; 

(2) To enjoin, abate or remedy by appropriate legal proceedings, either at 

law or in equity, the continuance of any such breach at the cost, including 

reasonable attorneys' fees, of such member; 

(3) If the personal conduct of any person violates the Association Rules and 

Regulations governing the use of the Common Elements, to suspend such 

use by any such person for violation of such rule or regulation for a period 

not to exceed thirty (30) days, in addition to the period of violation, for any 

single violation. 

(4) If, after thirty (30) days written notice, a person continues to 

continuously or repeatedly, and flagrantly, violate a rule or regulation, 

summary charges may be levied against a member for such violation, in 

addition to any damages, provided that no summary charges may be levied 

for more than $50.00 for any one violation; but each day a violation 

continues after such notice shall be considered a separate violation. 

Collection of charges for damages or summary charges may be enforced 

against the member as if the charge were a common charge owed by a 

particular member or members. 

(Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. «JI 70.) 

The Board obtained an estimate of $803.31 to rework the gas line. (Pl.' s Supp' g 

S.M.F. «JI 67; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. «JI 61.) Mrs. Collins refused to work with the Board to alter 

the gas line. (Pl.'s Supp'g S.M.F. «JICJI 69, 70; Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. <JI63, 64.) 

Pursuant to§ 5.3(d)(4) of the Bylaws, the Board sent a written Notice of Violation 

to Mrs. Collins on April 10, 2021. (Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. «JI 71.) Mrs. Collins did not remedy 

the purported violation within thirty days of receipt of the Notice of Violation. (Pl.'s 

Add'l S.M.F. «JI 73.) The Board voted to set a daily fine of $50.00. {Pl.'s Add'l S.M.F. <Jr 72.) 

The Association has assessed and continues to assess Mrs. Collins a fine of $50.00 per day 

for each day that her gas line remains in place. (Def.'s Supp'g S.M.F. «JI 16; Def.'s Add'l 

S.M.F. <JI 13.) 

Mrs. Collins moves for summary judgment on Counts I through IV of the 

Association's Complaint and Count I of her Counterclaim. The Association moves for 

Page 6 of 13 

i

i

l

l

i

!

I

I

I

!

II 

l; 

I 

i 

i 

~ ~ 

ii 

I~ 

ll 

[ 

' I 

I 

I 

I ' I 
summary judgment on Counts I and II of its Complaint and Counts I and II of Mrs. 

Collins' s Counterclaim. 

II. Legal Standard 

A party is entitled to summary judgment when review of the parties' statements 

of material facts and the record to which the statements refer demonstrates that there is 

no genuine issue as to any material fact in dispute, and that the moving party is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Dyer v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 106, 'l[ 

14,951 A.2d 821. 

A contested fact is "material" if it could affect the outcome of the case. Dyer, 2008 

ME 106, 'l[ 14, 951 A.2d 821. A "genuine issue" of material fact exists if a factfinder must 

"choose between competing versions of the truth." Id. (quoting Farrington's Owners' Ass'n 

v. Conway Lake Resorts, Inc., 2005 ME 93, 'l[ 9, 878 A.2d 504). 

The court considers the record in the light most favorable to the party objecting to 

the grant of summary judgment. F.R. Carroll, Inc. v. TD Bank, N.A., 2010 ME 115, 'l[ 8, 8 

A.3d 646; Blue Star Corp. v. CKF Props., LLC, 2009 ME 101, 'l[ 23, 980 A.2d 1270. "Facts 

contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if supported by record 

citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly 

controverted." M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4). To controvert an opposing party's statement of fact, 

a party must "support each denial or qualification by a record citation." M.R. Civ. P. 

56(h)(2). The evidence offered in support of a genuine issue of material fact "need not be 

persuasive at that stage, but the evidence must be sufficient to allow a fact-finder to make 

a factual determination without speculating." Est. of Smith v. Cumberland County, 2013 ME 

13, 'l[ 19, 60 A.3d 759. 

Page 7 of 13 
When appropriate, summary judgment may be rendered against the moving 

party. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment maybe entered on the issue ofliability alone 

although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages. Id. 

III. Discussion 

The undisputed facts for each of the pending motions are substantially similar, but 

not identical. The Court will first consider Mrs. Collins' s motion, viewing the record 

developed in connection with that motion in the light most favorable to the Association. 

Then, the Court will consider the Association's motion, viewing the record developed in 

connection with that motion in the light most favorable to Mrs. Collins. 

A. Mrs. Collins's Motion for Summary Judgment 

i. Counterclaim Count I 

Count I of Mrs. Collins's Counterclaim requests a declaratory judgment that Mrs. 

Collins has the right to install gas lines without Board approval. Mrs. Collins contends 

that the Governing Documents allow Unit owners to modify the interior of Units without 

Board approvat and that gas lines are included in the definition of 11Unit." To resolve this 

issue, the Court must interpret the Governing Documents. 

"A condominium association's bylaws and declaration are contracts, and '[t]he 

interpretation of a contract, including whether or not its terms are ambiguous, is a 

question of law."' Scott v. Fall Line Condo. Ass'n, 2019 ME 50, lJI 6, 206 A.3d 307 (quoting 

Farrington 's Owners' Ass'n, 2005 ME 93, <]I 9, 878 A.2d 504). Language is ambiguous "if it 

is reasonably susceptible to different interpretations." Farrington's Owners' Ass'n, 2005 

ME 93, <JI 9, 878 A.2d 504. 

If the court determines that language in the contract is ambiguous, then the 

interpretation of that language becomes a question of fact for the factfinder. Scott, 2019 

ME 50, <JI 6, 206 A.3d 307. Declarations and bylaws must be" construed in accordance with 

Page 8 of 13 

I

it 

II 

I: 

:11 

\f. 
the intention of the parties, which is to be ascertained from an examination of the whole 

instrument. All parts and clauses must be considered together that it may be seen if and 

how one clause is explained, modified, limited or controlled by the others." Scott, 2019 

ME 50, <jJ: 7,206 A.3d 307 (quoting Am. Prof. Ins. Co. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2003 ME 61 <J[ 11,814 

A.2d 989). 

The Declaration is unambiguous. The Common Elements may not be modified 

without prior written approval of the Board. The Common Elements include the exterior 

siding and exterior walls because they fall outside of the definition of a "Unit." Moreover, 

Rule and Regulation III makes abundantly clear that any alteration that "affects the 

structure or the exterior appearance in any way" requires approval. 

Mrs. Collins's interpretation-that gas lines are a component of a Unit and may be 

installed outside of a Unit and attached to Common Elements without prior approval of 

the Board as long as the gas line services only one Unit-is not a reasonable reading. Mrs. 

Collins' s interpretation depends on reading§ 3.2 in isolation. But the Court must consider 

the meaning of § 3.2 within the context of the Declaration as a whole, which includes §§ 

3.4, 4.1, and 4.3, and the incorporated Rules and Regulations. Reading the Governing 

Documents as a whole, it is apparent that Mrs. Collins's interpretation is unreasonable. 

Summary judgment will be entered against Mrs. Collins and in favor of the Association 

on Count I of the Counterclaim. 

ii. Complaint Count I 

The Association seeks a judgment declaring that Mrs. Collins violated the 

Governing Documents by installing her gas line and that the gas line is an unauthorized 

alteration to the Association's Common Elements. As discussed above, the Governing 

Documents unambiguously prohibit alteration of the Common Elements without prior 

Page 9 of 13 
Board approval, which Mrs. Collins did not obtain. Because installation of the gas line 

altered the exterior siding and walls, Mrs. Collins violated the Governing Documents. 

There are genuine disputes of fact regarding the aesthetic compatibility of Mrs. 

Collins' s gas lines with gas lines servicing other units. These disputes, however, are not 

material because they do not affect the undisputed fact that Mrs. Collins did not receive 

approval for the gas line installation. Accordingly, the Association is entitled to summary 

judgment in its favor and against Mrs. Collins on Count I of its Complaint. 

iii. Complaint Count II 

The Association seeks an order enjoining Mrs. Collins from interfering with work 

by the Association to remove and reinstall the gas line. A court may award injunctive 

relief when a plaintiff has shown: 

(1) that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, 

(2) that such injury outweighs any harm which granting the injunctive relief 

would inflict on the defendant (3) that plaintiff has exhibited a likelihood 

of success on the merits (at most, a probability; at least, a substantial 

possibility), (4) that the public interest will not be adversely affected by 

granting the injunction. 

Ingraham v. Univ. of Me., 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982). When a plaintiff requests a 

permanent injunction, the third element requires that the plaintiff has succeeded on the 

merits. Fitzpatrick v. Town of Falmouth, 2005 ME 97, <JI 18,879 A.2d 21. 

There are no genuine disputes of material fact as to any of the elements. As 

discussed in detail in the following section, the Association has succeeded in 

demonstrating the existence of the violation and its right to remedy the violation 

pursuant to the Governing Documents. See Bylaws § 5.3(d)(1). The Association has 

demonstrated the harm to its property rights from the continuing violation of the 

Governing Documents. That harm outweighs any harm that would come to Mrs. Collins 

from the reconfiguration and reinstallation of the gas line1 which is minimal. Finally, it is 

Page 10 of 13 
apparent that the public interest will not be adversely affected by the reinstallation project 

or by preventing Mrs. Collins from interfering with the work. 

The Association, therefore, is entitled to injunctive relief. Summary judgment will 

be entered against Mrs. Collins and in favor of the Association on Count II of the 

Complaint. An order will enter to enjoin Mrs. Collins from interfering with the 

Association's removal and reinstallation of the gas line servicing her Unit directly or 

through her agent(s). 

iv. Complaint Counts III and IV 

Count III of the Complaint is a claim for reimbursement of the cost of removing 

and reinstalling the gas lines. Count IV is a claim for the fines assessed by the Association 

against Mrs. Collins. Section 5.3(d)(l) of the Bylaws provides that the Association may 

abate and remove any "structure, thing or condition" that exists in violation of the 

Governing Documents at the expense of the unit owner after reasonable written notice 

and opportunity for the unit owner to remedy the violation. Section 5.3(d)(4) of the 

Bylaws provides that the Board may fine a person fifty dollars per day after notice of a 

violation "[i]f, after thirty (30) days written notice, a person continues to continuously or 

repeatedly, and flagrantly, violate a rule or regulation." 

Installation of the gas line required affixing brackets to the exterior siding and 

drilling a hole through the exterior siding and wall, which are Common Elements, 

thereby altering the exterior appearance of the building. Mrs. Collins violated the 

Declaration and Rule and Regulation III by failing to obtain approval of the Board before 

proceeding with the project. 

A written Notice of Violation was sent to Mrs. Collins on April 10, 2021. The Board 

also offered Mrs. Collins an opportunity to remedy the violation by reworking the gas 

line, which she refused. The violation continued for more than thirty days. These facts 

Page 11 of 13 
are undisputed. The Board, therefore, has authority to fine Mrs. Collins for the violation 

pursuant to Bylaws§ 5.3(d)(4). The Board also has authority to remove the gas line at 

Mrs. Collins's expense. Summary judgment will be entered in favor of the Association 

and against Mrs. Collins on the issue of liability for Counts III and IV; however, a hearing 

on damages will be necessary. 

B. The Association's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 

i. Complaint Count I 

As decided above, the Association is entitled to entry of summary judgment in its 

favor and against Mrs. Collins on Count I of its Complaint. 

ii. Complaint Count II 

As decided above, the Association is entitled to entry of summary judgment in its 

favor and against Mrs. Collins on Count II of its Complaint. 

iii. Counterclaim Counts I and II 

The Court has already ruled in favor of the Association and against Mrs. Collins 

on Count I of the Counterclaim. Thus, in the context of the Association's Motion1 the 

Court need only discuss Counterclaim Count II. Count II of Mrs. Collins's Counterclaim 

requests an injunction prohibiting the Association from fining Mrs. Collins for the 

installation of the gas line. 

As discussed above, the Association has authority pursuant to Bylaws§ 5.3(d)(4) 

to fine Mrs. Collins for each day the gas line remains in place in violation of the Governing 

Documents. The Court will not issue the requested injunction. Summary judgment is 

entered in favor of the Association and against Mrs. Collins on Count II of her 

Counterclaim. 

IV. Conclusion 

Page 12 of 13 
For the foregoing reasons, the Courts denies Mrs. Collins's Motion for Summary 

Judgment and grants the Association's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 

The entry is: 

1. Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Marjorie Collins's Motion for Summary 

Judgment is DENIED. Summary judgment is entered against Mrs. Collins and in 

favor of Plaintiff/ Counterclaim Defendant Applegate Association No. 1 on Count 

I of Mrs. Collins's Counterclaim, and summary judgment is entered against Mrs. 

Collins and in favor of the Association on Counts I and II of the Association's 

Complaint. Summary judgment as to the issue of liability is entered against Mrs. 

Collins and in favor of the Association on Counts III and IV of the Complaint; 

however, hearing on the issue of damages as to Counts III and IV is necessary 

before the Court may make an award of damages. 

2. The Association's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 

Summary judgment is entered in favor of the Association and against Mrs. Collins 

on Counts I and II of its Complaint, and summary judgment is entered in favor of 

the Association and against Mrs. Collins on Counts I and II of the Counterclaim. 

3. Mrs. Collins is hereby ENJOINED from interfering with the Association1 s 

removal and reinstallation of the gas line servicing her Unit directly or through 

her agent(s). 

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference 

pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a). 

Dated: 

Page 13 of 13