Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/32172732/Guidi-v-Jordan-ANDcv-01-198-Androscoggin-Super-Ct-2003
Timestamp: 2019-10-18 22:12:40
Document Index: 44120510

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2802', '§ 2802', '§ 2802', '§ 8104', '§ 8104', '§ 8104', '§ 671', '§ 8104', '§ 1367', '§9601']

Guidi v. Jordan, ANDcv-01-198 (Androscoggin Super. Ct., 2003) | Summary Judgment | Sovereign Immunity
сохранитьСохранить «Guidi v. Jordan, ANDcv-01-198 (Androscoggin Super....» для последующего чтения
Androscoggin, ss Civil Action
Docket No. CV-01-198
KEVIN GUIDI, et al.,
v. DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS'
DONAP:' L. 1:""
RECENED & F3? ED
ti:sY 2003
MN( 14 2W33
TOWN OF TURNER SAL INA
I. STATUS OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs brought a two-count complaint alleging that Eugene Jordan
("Jordan") violated 17 M.R.S.A. § 2802 by maintaining a nuisance (automobile
graveyard) on his property (Count I). The second claim alleges that the Town of
Turner ("Turner") by virtue of a brief ownership of the property and its
continuing unwillingness to enforce local land use regulations perpetrated a
constitutional taking of plaintiffs' property (Count II).
Both defendants have brought a Motion for Summary Judgment as to the
plaintiffs' claims against them. Jordan seeks summary judgment on Count I of
the Complaint, which alleges that the on-going condition of defendant's property
has caused harm to plaintiffs' neighboring land. Defendant Town of Turner
seeks summary judgment on Count II, which alleges that a partial constitutional
taking occurred (i.e. the alleged contamination and diminution in value of
plaintiffs' property) during Turner's brief ownership of the Jordan property.
There are also several motions to strike before the court, all of which stem
from the filings attendant to the motions for summary judgment. 1
The following facts are undisputed by the parties: 2 The Guidis are
property owners in Turner, Maine; Jordan owns property nearby and for a
disputed number of years has maintained an automobile graveyard; Jordan
became delinquent on his 1998 property taxes; and, on June 30, 2000 Turner filed
a tax lien on the property.
By operation of state law the unpaid lien expired on December 30, 2000
and Turner took title to the property, but Jordan was not evicted and remained
on the premises. Full payment was made by Jordan on the past due taxes by
August 1, 2001 and a discharge of lien was filed.
Plaintiffs filed three motions to strike and defendant Jordan filed one. The parties contend in
their respective motions that certain portions of the Statement of Material Facts (SMF) should be
disregarded or excluded due to one or several infirmities. Rule 56 provides counsel with
instructions as to filing summary judgment motions or oppositions thereto. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c) —
(h). Rule 56, and Law Court cases defining application of the rules, make clear that it is
incumbent on the court to monitor the parties' adherence to Rule 56 requirements and, within its
discretion, rule on the admissibility of evidence. M.R. Civ. P. 56(e) (affidavits requiring personal
knowledge); M.R. Civ. P. 56(h) (requiring short concise statements and "admit, deny or qualify");
Casco Northern Bank v. Estate of Grosse, 657 A.2d 778, 781 (Me. 1995)(holding that when "it is
apparent from the body of the affidavit that she had personal knowledge" will suffice); Doyle v.
Dep't of Human Servs,, 2003 ME 61, ¶¶ 10-13, A.2d (decided Apr. 28, 2003) (affirming
trial court's determination that failure to comply with the form requirements of Rule 56(h)
warranted disregarding many SMF). The court, mindful of the requirements of Rule 56 and the
attendant case law, has excluded any portions of the SMF that failed to comply with those
requirements. See infra note 2. The motions to strike are denied as moot, or, in the alternative,
granted insofar as they mirror the court's analysis below.
Factual assertions unsupported by record references, supported by insufficient record
references, or denied by a party whose denial is adequately supported by record references are not
included in this recitation of the facts. M.R.Civ.P. 56(h). Numerous Statements of Material Fact
fall into the last category; those disputed facts are properly left to the trier of fact at trial and are
not before the court at this juncture. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The citizens of Turner voted at a town meeting to quitclaim the property
back to Jordan so that the town's interest would terminate immediately, rather
than waiting for the one-year period following the discharge. Jordan and the
Town of Turner also entered into a consent agreement, which allowed Jordan a
period of time to remove all of the vehicles and permitted progress inspections
during that same time. The Town of Turner never took physical possession of
the Jordan land and never conducted any town activities on the property that
affected the plaintiffs. The time allotted by the consent agreement has expired
and Jordan has not complied with its terms. The property is not presently in
compliance with the local ordinance and Turner is pursuing a land use action
separate from this case.
The plaintiffs moved into their house on a parcel abutting Jordan's parcel
in the mid-1980's. Both parcels have frontage on the Nezinscot River. The
parcels also share the same sand and gravel aquifer. Plaintiffs allege that
pollution to the river and to the shared aquifer has markedly increased since
2000 due, in part, to the significant increase in the number of abandoned vehicles
on the land. The plaintiffs have opted not to drink the well water due to
inconsistent test results for MTBE and diesel range organics (DR0s). 3 In
December of 2001, the DEP tested some soil and debris removed rom the Jordan
parcel. The soil was contaminated with glycol from antifreeze and petroleum
products. Plaintiffs have a real estate broker's opinion stating that their
property's value is negatively impacted by effects of the neighboring Jordan
parcel in the amount of $21,500.
There are conflicting and admitted to facts in the SMF regarding the test dates, test results, and
the meaning of those results. See DSMF ¶¶ 59-65; PSMF TT 33-38.
III. EUGENE JORDAN
Jordan moves for summary judgment based on the argument that
plaintiffs' unsupported allegations do not sufficiently demonstrate the
particularized harm required in a private action on a public nuisance. Jordan
argues that there is no evidence of present harm to the well water, the inability to
swim in the river is not compensable, and there is insufficient evidence that
defendant's property constitutes a "blight" and has caused a diminution in the
value of neighboring property. Plaintiffs contend that there are disputed
genuine issues of material fact regarding the nuisance and that a deviation from
DEP standards is not required in order to find a nuisance in violation of 17
M.R.S.A. § 2802.
IV. TOWN OF TURNER
Turner's summary judgment motion simply contends that, as a matter of
law, the plaintiffs cannot recover against the town for either the alleged failure to
adequately enforce local ordinances or for the alleged damage perpetrated
during the town's brief ownership of the property. Plaintiffs summarize their
claim against Turner as, "a taking based on a physical invasion of their property
coupled with a loss in the market value of their home resulting from pollution
from the junkyard and the blighting effects of its presence on their property."
Pls.' Mem. p. 11. Specifically, the Guidis contend that Turner committed the
"taking" during its ownership of the property and that the Town is liable
because it failed to protect plaintiffs' property interests by refusing to adequately
enforce municipal land use ordinances.
A party is entitled to summary judgment where there exists no genuine
issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law. M. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Saucier v. State Tax Assessor, 2000 ME 8, I 4, 745 A.2d
972. A material fact is one having the potential to affect the outcome of the suit.
Kenny v. Dep't of Human Services, 1999 ME 158, ¶ 3, 740 A.2d 560. A genuine issue
exists when sufficient evidence supports a factual contest to require a fact finder
to choose between competing versions of the truth at trial. Blanchet v. Assurance
Co. of Am., 2001 ME 40, ¶ 6, 766 A.2d 71 (citation omitted).
B. Guidi v. Jordan
Any places where one or more old, discarded, worn-out or junked
motor vehicles.., or parts thereof, are gathered together, kept,
deposited or allowed to accumulate, in such manner or in such
location or situation either within or without the limits of any
highway, as to be unsightly, detracting from the natural scenery or
injurious to the comfort and happiness of individuals and the
public, and injurious to property rights, are public nuisances.
17 M.R.S.A. § 2802. To establish a cause of action for common or public
nuisance, a party must show that he has "suffered therefrom some special and
peculiar damages other and greater than those sustained by the public
generally." Charlton v. Town of Oxford, et al., 2001 ME 104, ¶ 27, 774 A.2d 366
The "peculiar damages" alleged by the plaintiffs include contamination of
the water supply, contamination of the river, loss of use of enjoyment of the
property and diminution in value of their property. Because it is the burden of
the plaintiff at trial to demonstrate a particularized injury, they must make a
prima facie showing to withstand a motion for summary judgment. MC Assocs.
v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 2001 ME 89,
¶ 7, 773 A.2d 439 (stating that summary judgment for a defendant is appropriate
when a jury verdict for the plaintiff would be based on mere conjecture and
In the present case, there are disputes as to the damage incurred and the
extent to which such injury is compensable. 4 The parties also dispute the
causation of the alleged contamination. "The question of whether a defendant's
acts or omissions were the proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries is generally a
question of fact, and a judgment as a matter of law is improper if any reasonable
view of the evidence could sustain a finding of proximate cause." Houde v.
Millett, 2001 ME 183, 1 11, 787 A.2d 757. Under the undisputed facts of the
instant case, it is neither unreasonable for a jury to find, nor would a jury be
merely speculating, that the operation of the automobile graveyard, a statutorily
defined nuisance, injured the plaintiffs differently than it has the community at
large. For these reasons, defendant Jordan's Motion for Summary Judgment is
C. Guidi v. Town of Turner
Plaintiff posits two theories of recovery against the town: (1) Turner failed
to adequately enforce its land use code and / or failed to take appropriate action
4The parties dispute the levels of contamination of the well, the acceptable level of
contamination, and the degree to which the Plaintiffs' property value has suffered as
result of the alleged injuries.
when it had the opportunity, by virtue of a tax lien; and (2) by virtue of that same
tax lien Turner became "owner" of the subject property and thereby responsible
for the conduct of Jordan resulting in the contaminations and the ultimate
decrease in market value. Pursuant to each of these theories, plaintiffs contend
that Turner has committed an unconstitutional taking. The former argument,
although plead in the complaint, is all but abandoned at summary judgment.
See Pls.' Mem. p. 11 (stating that a regulatory taking had not been alleged, but a
physical invasion of property). Plaintiffs' reliance on Foss v. Maine Turnpike
Auth., 309 A.2d 339 (Me. 1973) and their entire argument presupposes that
Turner is liable for occurrences on the land while it held title to the Jordan
property. See Pls.' Mem. pp.11-20 (referring to the "Town's land" and citing Foss
dealing with conduct occurring on land owned by the Maine Turnpike Authority
(MTA)) .
Plaintiffs' second argument fails as a matter of law. Although the doctrine
of sovereign immunity does not preclude all liability in tort allactions against
political subdivisions, Maine opted for the exceptions to immunity approach,
which presumes immunity unless exceptions expressly apply. Lovejoy v. State,
544 A.2d 750, 751 (Me. 1988). Exceptions to immunity should be strictly
construed. New Orleans Tanker Corp. v. Dept of Transportation, 1999 ME 67 16, 728
A.2d 673, 675. The Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA) provides for certain
exceptions to immunity, including the negligent operation and maintenance of a
If plaintiffs had continued the former argument, alleging a regulatory or categorical
taking, it would not be persuasive: First, as Turner correctly argued, Deshaney v.
Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs, 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989), held that a
municipality may not deprive individuals of property without due process, but failure to
protect an individual from the same deprivation by fellow private actor is not a violation
of due process. Furthermore, a "categorical taking" requires a showing that the
"government action has rendered the property substantially useless and stripped it of all
practical value." MC Assocs. v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 2001 ME 89,1111, 773 A.2d
public building. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104(2). This exception to immunity is limited by
several exceptions-to-the-exceptions, one of which is that a governmental entity
that acquires property for the reason of tax delinquency, is not liable for any
claim resulting from the date of foreclosure until 60 days after the delinquent
taxpayer has ceased possession. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104(2)(B) (2003).
Plaintiffs attempt to avoid the result intended by the legislature in
enacting the MTCA by positing other theories under which Turner may have
exposure to liability, from which the legislature has expressly rendered them
immune. Plaintiffs contend that Foss 'offers an exception when it is a takings
claim. Indeed, Foss states that sovereign immunity does not shield a
municipality from "legally unauthorized physical invasion of property or of
serious impairment of property use and enjoyment." Foss v. Maine Turnpike
Authority, 309 A.2d at 342. Foss is inapposite to the instant case.'
In Foss, the MTA owned and possessed the land causing the alleged
damage to the abutting parcel. Id. at 341. The MTA also conducted its snow
removal operations on the land, which resulted in runoffs that contaminated the
neighboring land. Id. at 353-44. In the present case, Turner never possessed the
land from which the plaintiffs allege contaminants flowed. Although plaintiffs
contend that Turner is liable for the acts of Jordan, its "tenant," the legislature
has decided to the contrary. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104(2)(B) (stating that a town is
immune from liability on claims stemming from the date of foreclosure until 60
days after taxpayer's possession has ceased). Turner also never conducted any
A taking by physical invasion requires a public purpose. 1 Cowan, MAINE REAL
ESTATE LAW AND PRACTICE, §§ 671-680 (1990)(stating eminent domain empowers every
government to appropriate private property for a public use). See also, Foss v. Maine
Turnpike Authority, 309 A.2d at 342 (deciding taking had been sufficiently alleged,
resulting from the sanding operation of the MTA).
activity on the property that merits extension of liability as was warranted in
Foss, at 343 (referencing the "salting operation of the Turnpike Authority").
Such an extension is well beyond the parameters outlined in Foss, as well
as being contrary to the legislative intent to insulate municipalities from claims
stemming from tax lien foreclosures. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104(2)(B). See also 38
M.R.S.A. § 1367-B (2003) (indicating a clear legislative intent to limit liability for
instances of pollution-related injuries caused by property acquired by tax liens);
42 U.S.C. §9601 (20d) (excluding from the definition of "owner or operator," for
purposes of hazardous waste liability, "a unit of State or local government which
acquired ownership or control involuntarily through . . . tax delinquency, . . . or
other circumstances in which the government involuntarily acquires title by
virtue of its function as sovereign").
For the reasons stated above, defendant Town of Turner's Motion for
VI. DOCKET ENTRIES AND JUDGMENT
The clerk is directed to make the following entries onto the docket of this case
as the Orders and judgment of this court:
A. Defendant Eugene Jordan's Motion for Summary Judgment is
B. Defendant Town of Turner's Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED and judgment is entered for the Town of Turner on all
claims against it, without costs.
Thom s E. Delahanty II
Justice, e Superior Court
Plaintiff - Curtis Webber, Esq.
Def. - Jordans - Juliet Browne, Esq. and
Merritt TC Ireland, Esq.
Def. - Town of Turner - Edward Benjamin, Jr., Esq.
Документы, похожие на «Guidi v. Jordan, ANDcv-01-198 (Androscoggin Super. Ct., 2003)»
Astornet Technologies v. Bae Systems Et. Al.
Troeckler v. Zeiser
Law Exam Paper With Answers Mark Allocation and Feedback
Danso Appiah Larry
special relationship-revised
Gresh v. MPayMe Partners - complaint.pdf
1.University of the East and Dr Garcia vs Masangkay and Regondola