H.E.P. Development Group, Inc. v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 08 April 1992 |
| Citation | 606 A.2d 774 |
| Parties | H.E.P. DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. v. Mark R. NELSON, et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Anthony K. Ferguson, Fales & Fales, Lewiston, for plaintiff.
Peter B. Dublin, Ronald P. Lebel, Rocheleau, Fournier & Lebel, Lewiston, for defendants.
Before ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.
Plaintiff H.E.P. Development Group, Inc. (HEP) appeals from summary judgment entered in the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Alexander, J.) in favor of defendants Mark and Susan Nelson. HEP contends that the court's judgment was the equivalent of a dismissal for failure to state a claim, and was erroneous because the complaint alleged facts sufficient to resist a summary judgment motion. We conclude that the court properly treated the motion as one for summary judgment and committed no error in granting the motion.
In December 1987, the Nelsons sold approximately 114 acres of their farm in Turner to HEP. The Nelsons were aware that HEP intended to subdivide the land and sell residential lots. HEP subsequently discovered that the land across the road from the land they purchased had been contaminated ten years earlier by a leaking underground gasoline storage tank located on that neighboring property. HEP then drilled a single test well on the portion of its land that lay directly opposite the previously contaminated property. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection tested the water from that well and found that the level of hydrocarbon contamination made it unsafe for human consumption. 1 HEP halted its plans for development 2 and brought suit against the Nelsons, alleging that the Nelsons were liable to it for intentionally failing to disclose the existence of the contamination. 3 Following the granting of the Nelson's motion for summary judgment, HEP appealed to this court.
HEP first contends that the Superior Court's entry of summary judgment on its claim of intentional nondisclosure was equivalent to a dismissal under M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and thus was improper. The record makes clear, however, that the court considered not only the allegations in the complaint but also the affidavits and the discovery that had been conducted by the parties, and on that basis concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that summary judgment was appropriate. See M.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
In reviewing an entry of a summary judgment, we examine the evidence before the court in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment has been granted to determine if the trial court committed an error of law. F.O. Bailey Co., Inc. v. Ledgewood, Inc., 603 A.2d 466, 468 (Me.1992). In order for HEP to prevail on its claim of intentional nondisclosure, it would have to present evidence that the Nelsons knew that their property was contaminated with gasoline and that (1) they actively concealed that fact from HEP, or (2)(a) a special relationship existed between the Nelsons and HEP imposing on the Nelsons a duty to disclose, and (b) they failed to make the disclosure. See Stevens v. Bouchard, 532 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clavet v. Dean
...then the defendant is entitled to summary judgment. Webb v. Haas, 1999 ME 74, ¶ 18, 728 A.2d 1261 (citing H.E.P. Dev. Group, Inc. v. Nelson, 606 A.2d 774, 775 (Me. 1992)). Mr. Dean has failed to adduce prima facie evidence of any element of the corporate opportunity doctrine. First, there a......
-
Sebago, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc.
...on the defendant an affirmative duty to disclose." Fitzgerald v. Gamester, 658 A.2d 1065, 1069 (Me.1995) (citing H.E.P. Dev. Group, Inc. v. Nelson, 606 A.2d 774, 775 (Me.1992)). It is not clear whether the Maine courts apply the rule in Fitzgerald where, as here, the plaintiff alleges both ......
-
USA. v. Colton
...Equifax Inc., 169 Cal. Rptr. 478, 487 (Ct. App. 1980); Franklin v. Brown, 159 So.2d 893, 898 (Fla. App. 1964); H.E.P. Dev. Group, Inc. v. Nelson, 606 A.2d 774, 775 (Me. 1992); Scharf v. Tiegerman, 561 N.Y.S.2d 271, 272 (App. Div. 1990) (quoting Haberman v. Greenspan, 368 N.Y.S.2d 717, 720-2......
-
In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2:08-MD-1954.
...Fitzgerald v. Gamester, 658 A.2d 1065, 1069 (Me.1995); Tobin v. Casco N. Bank, N.A., 663 A.2d 1, 2 (Me.1995); H.E.P. Dev. Group, Inc. v. Nelson, 606 A.2d 774, 775 (Me. 1992). 79. Neither party cited Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp., 960 A.2d 1188 (Me.2008). There, the Law Court recognized a m......