Opinion ID: 2555926
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Damages for Loss of Business Opportunity

Text: [¶ 27] Huber also contends that the Superior Court erred in awarding Lyman money damages for her loss of business opportunity based on her claim of ouster because ouster is not recognized as an actionable tort in Maine. He further asserts that even if we recognize such a tort, the trial court erred because there was no evidence that Lyman was ousted from the Cape Elizabeth property; rather, she left the property voluntarily. [¶ 28] Ouster has not previously been recognized as an actionable tort in Maine. See Porter v. Hooper, 13 Me. 25, 29 (1836) (stating that a tenant-in-common may occupy property to the exclusion of a co-tenant without committing a trespass); Davis v. Poland, 102 Me. 192, 195, 66 A. 380, 382 (1906) (stating that a tenant-in-common's destruction of common property or practical destruction of a co-tenant's property interest constitutes a trespass); see generally Simmons, Zillman & Gregory, Maine Tort Law (2004 ed. & Supp. 2009) (not addressing the tort of ouster, but discussing, at § 5.05, that a co-tenant's exclusion of another co-tenant is not a trespass). The Superior Court recognized this and, instead of awarding Lyman damages on her ouster claim, it included those damages, measured by her loss of business opportunity, in her damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because we have already concluded that Lyman was not entitled to relief for her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court's award of damages to Lyman for her loss of business opportunity must also be vacated. The entry is: Judgment vacated. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for the entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.