Opinion ID: 2549584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Danuta Soucy's Liability

Text: [¶ 27] The Soucys challenge the judgment against Danuta Soucy on Dupuis's claim for trespass based on the cutting of trees pursuant to section 7552(2)(A), and the claim for trespass based on the removal of a boundary marker pursuant to section 7552(2)(C). [12] We will examine the evidence against Danuta Soucy to determine if there is sufficient evidence of conduct that would result in her personal liability. See Bonk, 605 A.2d at 78. The record is devoid of any evidence either linking Danuta Soucy to the actual cutting and boundary marker removal or suggesting that Danuta somehow directed or authorized Ronald to commit those acts. See Martin, 650 A.2d at 939; Perkins v. Graves, 642 A.2d 1349, 1351 (Me.1994). Dupuis conceded as much at oral argument. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as it regards trespass claims made against Danuta Soucy.