Grinnell v. Bedford Falls Associates, LLC
| Decision Date | 01 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action RE-08-017 |
| Parties | SIMPLEX GRINNELL, Party-in-Interest/ Cross-claim Plaintiff. v. BEDFORD FALLS ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant. ANDOCEAN BANK, FSB, HOME LOAN INVESTMENT BANK, FSB, FOUR BROTHERS CORPORATION, ALAN EGER ELECTRIC, INC., AND PORT CITY GLASS COMPANY, INC, Parties-in-Interest |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
ORDER ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS
Before the Court are Parties-in-Interest Ocean Bank, FSB and Home Loan Investment Bank, FSB's motion to dismiss Cross-claim Plaintiff Simplex Grinnell's Amended Cross-Claim pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and their motion for summary judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56.
On January 22, 2008, Plaintiff Alan Eger Electric, Inc. ("Eger") filed a five-count complaint, naming Ocean Bank, FSB ("Ocean Bank") and Home Loan Investment Bank, FSB ("Home Loan") as parties-in-interest to Eger's mechanic's lien claim. On March 7, 2008 Simplex Grinnell filed a four-count cross-claim against Bedford Falls Associates, LLC ("Bedford Falls") Ocean Bank and Home Loan. Simplex Grinnell did not name Ocean Bank and Home Loan as defendants on any of the counts, but named them only as parties-in-interest for its mechanic's lien claim. On June 6, 2008, Simplex Grinnell sought leave from the Court to file an Amended Cross-Claim, adding Port City Glass Company, Inc. ("Port City") as a party-in-interest. The Court granted this motion.
On June 17, 2008, Ocean Bank and Home Loan filed an Answer to the Amended Cross-Claim. On July 2, 2008, Port City filed an Answer to the Amended Cross-Claim. Neither the defendant nor the other parties-in-interest filed answers.[1] As of July 7 2008, Eger's claims were either dismissed or otherwise fully resolved. Thus, only Cross-Claim Plaintiff Simplex Grinnell's claims remain.
On January 26, 2009, Simplex Grinnell moved for leave to file a Second Amended Cross-Claim pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Seconded Amended Cross-Claim included additional allegations against Ocean Bank and Home Loan. Specifically, Simplex Grinnell sought to include these parties-in-interest in its allegation that the work it performed was done with the knowledge and consent of these entities, in addition to the knowledge and consent of Defendant Bedford Falls. On February 20, 2009, Ocean Bank and Home Loan filed an opposition to this motion. On February 25, 2009, the Court issued the following Order:
Motion to amend will be granted provided Simplex Grinnell further amends to allege compliance with Mechanic's Lien Statute on or before March 16, 2009. Otherwise motion to amend is Denied.
The Clerk of Court docketed this Order in the usual course.[2] To date, Simplex Grinnell has not filed a revised Second Amended Cross-Claim. By operation of Simplex Grinnell's failure to file an amendment to its second amended complaint its motion was denied. See Order dated Feb. 25, 2009. Nevertheless, the Court takes this opportunity to further to analyze the substance of Simplex Grinnell's Motion to Amend.
In the interests of finality and judicial economy, the court should rule on a motion to amend before the court considers a dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. Sherbert v. Remmel, 2006 ME 116, ^ 8, 908 A.2d 622, 624; Kelly v. Midland's Ins. Agency, 651 A.2d 345, 346 (Me. 1994). A "party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served." M.R. Civ. P. 15(a). "Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party." Id.
The
court shall freely grant a motion to amend "when justice
so requires." M.R. Civ. P. 15(a). This rule should be
"liberally applied to achieve the purpose set forth in
Rule 1: the 'just, speedy and inexpensive determination
of every action.'" Bangor Motor Co. v.
Chapman, 452 A.2d 389, 392 (Me. 1982). The Court may
deny a motion to amend for a number of reasons. For instance,
"the court may deny a motion to amend if it is untimely
filed or filed for delay." Sherbert, 2006 ME
116,
In the instant case, Cross-Claim Plaintiff's stated reason for its motion to amend is to cure a "clerical error" in failing to allege that Parties-in-Interest Ocean Bank and Home Loan had knowledge and consent of the work it performed at the Bedford Falls property. As pointed out by Ocean Bank and Home Loan in their opposition, this amendment, by itself, does not cure the defects in Simplex Grinnell's Second Amended Cross-Claim Complaint. The mechanic's lien statute ("the Act"), 10 M.R.S. §§ 3201-3269 (2008), provides the necessary procedure for a claimant to properly perfect a mechanic's lien. T.A. Napolitnno Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Direnzo, 602 A.2d 1149, 1150 (Me. 1992) (quoting Pineland Lumber Co. v. Robinson, 382 A.2d 33, 36 (Me. 1978)).
The Act provides relief to lien claimants who furnish labor, materials, or services pursuant to a contract with an owner of property or with the owner's consent.[3] 10 M.R.S. § 3251. It provides more protections for owners if the lien claim is based on the owner's consent, rather than contract.[4] For example, if the lien claim is based on the owner's alleged consent, the owner may prevent the lien by giving written notice to the lien claimant. Id. § 3252.[5] Also, a lien claimant must file the details of the lien with the registry of deeds and provide a copy of this filing to all allegedly consenting owners. Id. § 3253(1)(A)-(B). A failure to do so is fatal to a claim based on consent because the lien is automatically dissolved after ninety days. Id. § 3253.[6]
The Act specifically addresses pleading requirements. Id. § 3257. Specifically, Section 3257 states, in relevant part:
By the Act's plain language, the allegations in the complaint must 1) claim a lien on a structure and/or land with a degree of specificity; 2) it must state whether the services rendered were pursuant to a contract with the owner or with the owner's consent; and 3) the claimant must affirmatively state that it complied with the notice procedures of section 32537 Id. Although Simplex Grinnell's motion to amend addressed the issue of Ocean Bank and Home Loan's knowledge and consent to its work, it failed to address how its amendment to the Complaint would cure the defects regarding the statutorily required notice. Nor did Simplex Grinnell provide this information to the Court after its February 25, 2009 Order.[8] Accordingly, the Court denies Simplex Grinnell's motion to amend the pleadings pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 15(a). Given this, the First Amended Cross-Claim is the operative complaint considered in the parties-in-interests' motion to dismiss and their motion for summary judgment.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, 'the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted.'" Shaw v. Southern Aroostook Comni. Sch. Dist., 683 A.2d 502, 503 (Me. 1996) (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this Court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." Id. A dismissal under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) will be granted only "when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his claim." Id. (quoting Hall v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 498 A.2d 260, 266 (Me. 1985)). This is a question of law. Bean v. Cummings, 2008 ME 18, ¶ 7, 2008 ME 18, 939 A.2d 676, 679.
A mechanic's lien is a creature of statute. Direnzo, 602 A.2d at 1150. The Act is "construed and applied liberally to further their equity and efficacy, when it is clear that the lien has been honestly earned, and the lien claimant is within the statute." Twin Island Dev. Corp. v. Winchester, 512 A.2d 319, 323 (Me. 1986) (internal quotation omitted). Nevertheless, the Law Court requires fairly strict adherence to the Act's requirements in an effort to serve the dual purposes of the Act: "afford security to mechanics and provide notice to owners and purchasers of potential claims." HCI Corp....
To continue reading
Request your trial