Opinion ID: 2763907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Harvey’s Statutory Trespass Claim

Text: [¶22] Harvey contends on cross-appeal that the trial court misinterpreted the trespass statute, 14 M.R.S. § 7551-B, as requiring a showing of a knowing or intentional state of mind. Section 7551-B provides that “a person who intentionally enters the land of another without permission and causes damage to property is liable to the owner” for the owner’s actual damages if the property damage was not intentional, but is liable for twice the owner’s actual damages if the property was damaged intentionally. 14 M.R.S. §§ 7551-B(1), (2). The trial court found that Furrow had no liability pursuant to this section because he did not 16 intentionally enter the land of another, reasoning that Furrow subjectively believed that he was on property that he owned. [¶23] The trial court did conclude, however, that Furrow was liable to Harvey for damages pursuant to section 7552. As a result, any recovery pursuant to section 7551-B is barred. 14 M.R.S. § 7552(8). Thus, we need not reach Harvey’s argument relating to the court’s construction of section 7551-B. See Estate of White, 521 A.2d 1180, 1182 (Me. 1987) (explaining that we will affirm a trial court’s decision if it ultimately reaches the correct result). [¶24] With respect to section 7552, it is well established that in order to obtain treble damages a party must prove that the trespasser was subjectively aware that his conduct was contrary to the true owner’s rights in the property or, in the alternative, that the conduct displayed something more than indifference to the owner’s rights. See, e.g., Dupuis v. Soucy, 2011 ME 2, ¶ 22, 11 A.3d 318; Shrader-Miller v. Miller, 2004 ME 117, ¶ 18, 855 A.2d 1139. We are unpersuaded by Harvey’s contention that the trial court’s finding that treble damages were inappropriate represented a misapplication of the law. The trial court found that Furrow’s conduct in entering Harvey’s land and damaging and removing trees was “rash, ill-advised, and offensive to his neighbors”; it also found, however, that Furrow was convinced that he owned the property in question by virtue of the description in his deed and simply did not consider the ramifications of Harvey’s 17 conflicting deed description or the application of the doctrines of adverse possession or boundary by acquiescence. Although we agree that Furrow’s conduct, undertaken in the midst of an ongoing boundary dispute, may have demonstrated “an utter and complete indifference to and disregard for” Harvey’s rights, more is required to satisfy section 7552(4)(B).6 Woodworth v. Gaddis, 2012 ME 138, ¶ 13, 58 A.3d 1109 (quotation marks omitted). Contrary to Harvey’s contentions, the record does not compel a finding that Furrow’s conduct rose to the level of being knowing or intentional. See In re Adoption of T.D., 2014 ME 36, ¶ 12, 87 A.3d 726 (“If the trial court finds that a party with the burden of proof fails to meet that burden, we review the entire record to ascertain whether the record compels a finding contrary to that made by the trial court.” (quotation marks omitted)).