Harriman v. Border Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 2004 |
| Citation | 2004 ME 28,842 A.2d 1266 |
| Parties | GREGORY A. HARRIMAN et al. v. BORDER TRUST CO. et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Gregory A. and Kathryn P. Harriman, Dixmont, ME for plaintiffs.
Michael S. Haenn, Esq., Bangor, Attorney for defendants.
Panel: CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.
[¶1] Gregory A. and Kathryn P. Harriman appeal from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (Waldo County, Atwood, J.) dismissing their claim against Border Trust Co. and Telmark, LLC as barred by principles of res judicata and enjoining the Harrimans from filing further actions against Border Trust and Telmark, related to or arising from the foreclosure of their farm in Troy. We affirm the judgment and impose sanctions against the Harrimans for filing a frivolous appeal.
[¶2] The Harrimans were dairy farmers who once owned a farm in Troy. In 1995, Fleet Bank of Maine foreclosed the mortgage on that farm; the Superior Court (Marsano, J.) entered a judgment of foreclosure in Fleet's favor; the Harrimans appealed; and we affirmed the judgment of foreclosure in December 1998. See Fleet Bank of Me. v. Harriman, 1998 ME 275, 721 A.2d 658
. Sometime thereafter, David A. and Debra C. Quimby bought the farm and mortgaged it to Border Trust and Telmark. The Harrimans initiated a lawsuit against Fleet Bank of Maine, Border Trust, Telmark, the Quimbys, and The United States of America, seeking title to and possession of the farm. The Superior Court (Marsano, J.) entered judgments against the Harrimans and, in 2001, we affirmed the judgments in an unpublished memorandum of decision. See Harriman v. Fleet Bank of Me., No. 01-51 (Me. June 14, 2001) (mem.).
[¶3] The next year, still seeking title to and possession of the farm, the Harrimans filed another lawsuit against the same parties, except that, instead of naming the United States, they named two attorneys, David Van Dyke and Carl McCue, as defendants.1 The Superior Court (Atwood, J.) dismissed the Harrimans' claims against all the defendants and enjoined the Harrimans from filing any further actions arising from the foreclosure, against Fleet Bank of Maine or the Quimbys, bringing us to the present lawsuit.
[¶4] Finding themselves only somewhat constrained by the Superior Court's order, the Harrimans filed yet another lawsuit seeking title to and possession of the farm, but this time naming only Border Trust, Telmark, and Key Bank U.S.A., as defendants. The Superior Court granted Border Trust and Telmark's motion to dismiss, citing principles of res judicata, and enjoined the Harrimans from filing any further actions against Border Trust or Telmark, related to or arising from the foreclosure of the farm. The Harrimans filed this appeal.
[¶5] Since 2000, the Harrimans have brought lawsuits against Border Trust and Telmark, either as named defendants or parties-in-interest, three times. In each case, they have sought title to and possession of the farm lost in the foreclosure proceeding. As the Superior Court rightly observed, "The law is plain that they cannot again come forward in the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norton v. Town of Long Island
...1997 ME 125, ¶ 4, 697 A.2d at 829 (quoting Petit v. Key Bancshares of Me., Inc., 635 A.2d 956, 959 (Me.1993)); see also Harriman v. Border Trust Co., 2004 ME 28, ¶ 5, 842 A.2d 1266, 1267. Claim preclusion does not, however, apply when a court "reserves a party's right to maintain a second a......
-
Reynolds v. Bank of America, N.A.
...prevents relitigation of matters already decided. Portland Water Dist. v. Town of Standish, 2008 ME 23, ¶ 7, 940 A.2d 1097; Harriman v. Border Trust Co., 2004 ME 28, ¶ 842 A.2d 1266 ("The law is plain that [litigants] cannot again come forward in the same legal mission against the same part......
-
O'Shea v. Kathleen M. O'Shea, Brian Connor O'Shea, John J.C. O'Shea, Iii, & Killybegs, LLC, SUPERIOR COURT Civil Action DOCKET NO. CV-14-157
...cannot again come forward in the same legal mission against the same parties to secure a remedy . . . previously denied." Harriman v. Border Trust Co., 2004 ME 28, ¶ 5, 842 A.2d 1266 (quotation marks omitted). Thus, "[r]es judicata prevents a litigant from splintering his or her claim and p......
-
Ouellette v. Inhabitants of the Town of Frenchville
... ... against the same parties to secure a remedy ... previously ... denied.' Harriman v. Border Trust Co., 2004 ME ... 28, P5, 842 A.2d 1266, 1267 (quotation marks omitted); ... ...