Opinion ID: 1439061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Willful Conduct Pursuant to Section 7552

Text: DiCicco further challenges the trial court's finding that he willfully destroyed plants, trees, and shrubs on Tremblay's property, pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552 (Supp.1992). [2] He asserts that he was the owner of the property in question until the trial court nullified his deed and, therefore, his destruction of Tremblay's plants could not have been the willful destruction of property from land not his own. We disagree. `Willfully,' as used in section 7552 ... is intended `to embrace conduct on the part of the defendant which displays an utter and complete indifference to and disregard for the rights of others.' Bonk v. McPherson, 605 A.2d 74, 77 (Me.1992) (quoting Guilmet v. Galvin, 597 A.2d 1348, 1349 (Me.1991)). We have held that [t]he determination by the trial court as to whether conduct is willful or knowing within the meaning of section 7552 is a question of fact and will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Walsh v. Johnston, 608 A.2d 776, 778 (Me.1992). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence supports the trial court's finding of willful conduct. DiCicco knew that the boundary between the parcels was in dispute and made no effort to determine the actual boundary before destroying the plants, trees, and shrubs located on Tremblay's property. See Guilmet v. Galvin, 597 A.2d at 1350 (upholding finding of willful conduct where defendants made some effort to determine boundary but did not hire surveyor, examine metes and bounds indicated in their deed, or contact plaintiffs or other neighbors to determine the actual boundary). Tremblay urges that we impose sanctions against DiCicco pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 76(f) for appealing the trial court's decision. [3] We exercise the power to sanction pursuant to Rule 76(f) `only in egregious cases.' Voignier v. Bittner, 609 A.2d 709, 710 (Me.1992) (quoting Estate of Bonin, 457 A.2d 1123, 1125 (Me. 1983)). We do not find this to be such an egregious case. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.