Court Opinion

ID: 9916585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 02:50:15.759807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:38.181900
License: Public Domain

STATE OF MAINE                                                       SUPERIOR COURT
ANDROSCOGGIN, ss.                                                    CIVIL ACTION
                                                                     DOCKET NO. AP-22-5

ROY WANDELL,

                Appellant

        V.                                           DECISION AND ORDER

MAURICE EVANS and
CRYSTAL JOLICOEUR,

                Appellee

       The matter before the court is appellant Roy Wandell's appeal of the District Court's

decision in an action on his small claims action. Mr. Wandell brought an action against two

former tenants seeking damages for physical damages to the property and unpaid rent. The

District Court awarded damages for physical damages but did not grant any damages for the

unpaid rent. For the following reasons, the District Court's order will be vacated and remanded

to the District Court for fmther proceedings.

Background

       Mr. Wandell filed a small claims action against Mr. Evans and Ms. Jolicoeur on

December 2, 2020, after prevailing in a related Forcible Entry and Detainer action against them

for ongoing lease violations and Mr. Evans's domestic violence against Ms. Jolicoeur. (See

Docket No. SA-20-329.) Mr. Wandell sought damages for property damage Mr. Evans and Ms.

Jolicoeur caused, as well as unpaid rent for May, June, July, and part of August at $700 per

month. (Statement of Claim.)

       The matter was set for hearing on Januaiy 12, 2022. On that date, Ms. Jolicoeur called the

court to say that she could not attend because she had tested positive for COVID-19. (Jan. 12 Tr

                                                1
2:8-14.) Mr. Evans did not attend the hearing or inform the District Court of any reason for his

failure to appear. (Jan. 12 Tr 2:15-18.) Accordingly, the District Court entered a default

judgment as to Mr. Evans and continued the matter to Februaiy 16, 2022, as to Ms. Jolicoeur.

       The District Court asked Mr. Wandell whether he had a summary of the damages he

incurred, and the cost of repairing said damages. (Jan. 12 Tr 2:25, 3:1.) The court told Mr.

Wandell that at the February 16 hearing "the Court's expectation would be at that point is that

you'll have all the receipts necessaiy to document what you say the cost of the repairs were."

(Jan. 12 Tr 4:7-9.) The court reemphasized this right afterwards, instructing Mr. Wandell that he

was "to bring all documentation you have to substantiate your claim as to the cost of repairs

when you return on February 16." (Jan. 12 Tr 4:15-17.)

       Ms. Jolicoeur did not appear at the February 16 hearing. (Feb. 16 Tr 3:6-8.) Accordingly,

a default judgment was entered against her as well. (Feb. 16 Tr 4:3-6.) Mr. Evans was present at

this heai·ing. (Feb. 16 Tr 3: 13.) The District Court then turned to the issue of damages. The court

put Mr. Wandell under oath and proceeded to inquire as to the documentation that Mr. Wandell

had brought to substantiate his damages for repairs. (Feb. 16 Tr 8-11.)

       As Mr. Wandell went through various receipts to substantiate his damages, the court

noted that these documents did not substantiate an award of$3,964, as Mr. Wandell had alleged

in damages in his statement of claim. (Feb. 16 Tr 11: 15-17.) Mr. Wandell then clmified that he

was also seeking damages for unpaid rent. (Feb. 16 Tr 11: 18-19.) The District Court asked Mr.

Wandell whether he had a copy of the lease that expresses what the amount of rent was. (Feb. 16

Tr 11 :20-21.) Mr. Wandell did provide a copy of the rental agreement, but the agreement did not

state the monthly rent. (Feb. 16 Tr. 22-24; Rental Agreement.)

                                                 2
       Mr. Wandell pointed to his statement of claim, where he alleged that the rent was $700

per month. (Feb. 16 Tr. 13:11-14.) The comt asked Mr. Wandell whether he had any

docU111entation to supp01t his allegation of back rent. (Feb. 16 Tr. 13: 15-20.) Mr. Wandell said

that he did not bring any docU111entation of the rental amount. (Feb. 16 Tr. 13:21-22.) The

District Comt then told Mr. Wandell "Well, today was the day that I directed you, sir, to come in

with your documentation for the cl-(sic) for the amounts you claimed were owned(sic) in the

way of damages-". (Feb. 16 Tr. 13:23-25.) When it became clear that Mr. Wandell did not have

any documentation establishing the monthly rent, the District Court concluded its questioning.

(Feb. 16 Tr. 15:13-16.) The District Court asked Mr. Evans whether he had anything to add but

did not ask about the monthly rent. (Feb. 16 Tr. 15-16.)

        The District Court ultimately awarded Mr. Wandell $959.03 in damages. Mr. Wandell

made a timely motion for findings of fact pursuant to M.R. S. C.P. 15. The District Comt granted

the motion for findings of fact and found, based on the docU111entary evidence provided by Mr.

Wandell at the February 16 hearing, that Mr. Wandell was entitled to damages for his court costs

in both the FED action and small claims action, and the cost of repairs, but not back rent.

(Findings of Fact ,r,r 1-2.)

        Mr. Wandell sent a letter to the District Comt on April 11, 2022, seeking the opportunity

to present evidence establishing his entitlement to damages for back rent. Mr. Wandell explained

that he believed that he had already won judgment on the $3,000 of back rent, and only needed to

provide evidence of the prope1ty damage caused by Mr. Evans and Ms. Jolicoeur. The District

Court interpreted this as a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to M.R.S.C.P. 9. The

District Court denied the motion, reasoning that it had told Mr. Wandell to bring all of the

evidence for any damages he was seeking to the February 16 hearing. The comt further held that

                                                  3
the Plaintiff had " ..failed to provide any proof of the lease agreement, the financial terms of the

rental agreement, any record of rental payment or nonpayment, any notice to the Defendants

regarding unpaid rent, etc.". (Order on Plaintiffs Motion For Clarification, p. 4). The District

Court reasoned that Mr. Wandell's failure to bring evidence substantiating his claim for back

rent was his own responsibility and did not meet the inexcusable neglect standard contemplated

by M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(l). 1

        Mr. Wandell then appealed the matter to Superior Court.

Standard

        "Small claims proceedings are a creature of statute, established by the Legislature with

jurisdiction given to the District Coutt for the purpose of providing a simple, speedy and

informal court procedure for the resolution of small claims." Ring v. Leighton, 2019 ME 8, ,r 11,

200 A.3d 259 (quotation omitted). Small claims proceedings are an alternative way to

expediently resolve a claim ofless than $6,000, exclusive of interests and costs, that does not

involve title to real estate. 14 M.R.S. §§ 7481-7482. "Small claims proceedings are governed by

separate, succinct procedural rules" promulgated by the Law Comt. Midland Funding LLC v.

Walton, 2017 ME 24, ,r 16, 155 A.3d 864.

        A party aggrieved by the District Court's judgment in a Small Claims action may appeal

to Superior Court. M.R.S.C.P. 11. Ifa defendant appeals, they may seek a jury trial de novo on

issues triable by right by including a written demand for a jury trial with supp01ting affidavits.

M.R.S.C.P. 1 l(d)(2). If the defendant does not so request, the appeal is on questions oflaw only.

Id. The scope of the Superior Court's review is thus limited and specific in character. Taylor v.

 Walker, 2017 ME 218, ,r 5, 173 A.3d 539.

 1 M.R.S.C.P. 9 incorporates M.R. Civ. P. 60 by reference.

                                                    4
Discussion

       Mr. Wandell has argued that the District Court erred in two substantive ways. First, he

argues that the District Court erred by not granting the award for unpaid rent on the record before

it. Second, Mr. Wandell argues that the District Court should have allowed him the opportunity

to present evidence in support of his claim for unpaid rent. The court can view this claim in two

ways; Mr. Wandell could prevail if the District Court erred by failing to grant the Motion for

Relief from Judgment or if the District Court erred by failing to give Mr. Wandell an opportunity

to present more evidence in the first place.

       The court begins its analysis by noting that small claims proceedings, in light of the

legislative intent that they be "simple, speedy and informal," do not follow the same rules of

evidence as other proceedings. Ring v. Leighton, 2019 ME 8, ,r,r 11, 13, 200 A.3d 259. For

example, "[t]he court may receive any oral or documentary evidence [that is] not privileged; the

presiding judge is required to assist in developing all relevant facts; and the court is not required

to aiticulate any findings of fact or conclusions oflaw following the hearing." Id. (quotations

omitted).

        What the cmut notes about this proceeding is the fact that the District Court told Mr.

Wandell to bring to the F ebruaiy 16 hearing was not, as the District Court later asserted,

evidence of all of Mr. Wandell's dainages. The District Court instructed Mr. Wandell in very

clear terms to bring documentaiy evidence of the cost to repair the physical damage to the

property on Febrnary 16. The District Court said nothing about bringing evidence to substantiate

his claim for back rent.

        When Mr. Wandell was unable to provide written documents to support his rent claim at

the Februaiy 16 hearing, the District Comt stated "Well, today was the day that I directed you,

                                                  5
sir, to come in with your documentation for the cl-(sic) for the amounts you claimed were

owned(sic) in the way of damages-". (Feb. 16 Tr. 13:23-25.) In its Order on Plaintiffs Motion

For clarification, the court wrote that it had admonished the Plaintiff to bring his receipts and

other documents supporting his claim. (Order, p. 3 and 4). The District Cou1t may have assumed

at the time of the first hearing that there would be a lease agreement with a monthly rent amount

attached to the Statement of Claim and that further evidence would be unnecessary. However,

this court cannot blame Mr. Wandell for following the District Court's instrnctions, to bring

documentation regarding the cost to repair. On the other hand, documentation for lost rent may

not even exist. The rental agreement attached to the statement of claim does not specifiy a rent, it

merely states when rent is due and lists various house rules. The arrangement appears to be a

tenancy at will. A written agreement is not required to establish a tenancy at will. And Mr.

Wandell evicted his tenants for lease violations, not unpaid rent. So, there would not be a notice

of unpaid rent as the comt referred to in its Order.

         The presiding judge is required to assist in developing the relevant facts and did not

afford Mr. Wandell the opportunity to testify under oath as to the amount of rent owed.

Furthermore, one of the defendants was also present, and could have potentially offered

testimony to clarify the issue.

        The District Court was not bound to believe Mr. Wandell without documentary evidence

ifit did not believe his testimony. However, it is this court's view that the District Court was

required to give Mr. Wandell a meaningful opportunity to present evidence, testimonial or

otherwise, in support of his claim. By instrncting Mr. Wandell to bring evidence of the cost of

repairs and then declining to give him a chance to testify about the rental agreement, the District

                                                  6
Court functionally deprived Mr. Wandell of the chance to present that evidence. The District

Court's decision regarding rent must be reversed.

          The entry is

               The order of the District Court is VACATED. The matter
               will be REMANDED for a further hearing on the issue of
               back rent only.

               The Clerk is directed to enter this order into the do~by
               reference pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).             ,
                                                                (:
                                                                '
Date: June       2023
                                                           Harold Stewart, II
                                                           Justice, Superior Court

                                                7