Opinion ID: 2074592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Expenses for Defending Timber Trespass Claim

Text: [¶ 25] The expenses incurred by the LeClercs in defending the Dionnes' timber trespass claim are a different question. Title was not directly at issue when that claim went to trial, because it had already been decided by the referee. We cannot say, however, that the timber trespass claim was not a suit[] ... affecting the title to the estate. Ryerson, 66 Me. at 562. Jean LeClerc's only real defense to liability on that claim was that he and his wife, and not the Dionnes, held superior title. With that defense foreclosed at trial, he did not contest liability, but his primary defense on damageswhich succeeded in convincing the jury that he had not acted intentionally or knowinglywas that when the trees were cut he believed that he had title. The title issue was thus intertwined with the timber trespass claim even though it was not decided by it. Under Ryerson, because of the breadth of the indemnity offered by the covenant of warranty, it is not necessary that the claim be determinative of title, only that the defense or assertion of the claim have a good-faith relation to the defense or assertion of the title. See id. at 561. As damages for Roy's breach of the covenant, therefore, the LeClercs are entitled to their reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, for their defense of the Dionnes' timber trespass claim, to the extent that that claim is for trespass to the premises covered by the warranty. Again, they are not entitled to any reimbursement insofar as the claim relates to the property conveyed by Roy's quitclaim deed.