Jones v. York

• Court: Maine Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before McKUSICK
• Citation: Jones v. York, 444 A.2d 382 (Me. 1982)
• Decision Date: 23 April 1982
• Parties: Edward W. JONES, et al. v. Harold E. YORK.

Page 382

444 A.2d 382

Edward W. JONES, et al. v. Harold E. YORK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued March 8, 1982.

Decided April 23, 1982.

Hastings & Son, P.A., David R. Hastings, III (orally), Peter G. Hastings, Fryeburg, for plaintiffs.

Arthur H. Bloomberg (orally), Bridgton, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C. J., GODFREY, NICHOLS, ROBERTS and WATHEN, JJ., and DUFRESNE A. R. J.

DUFRESNE, Active Retired Justice.

Edward W. Jones and his wife, Diane, as alleged owners in fee title of a lot of land with the buildings thereon located at the junction of Oxford and Smith Streets in the Town of Fryeburg, in the County of Oxford, joined by Richard J. Goff, Jr., and his wife, Priscilla, as lessees of the stated premises by virtue of a written five-year lease with option to purchase executed to them by the said Joneses, commenced the instant action of forcible entry and detainer on April 3, 1981, in District Court, Bridgton, against the defendant, Harold E. York, whose tenancy at will was said to have been terminated by written notice to quit entitling the plaintiffs to immediate possession of said premises withheld by the defendant. ¹

In his timely answer to the complaint the defendant York, besides his claim of title to the premises, raised several affirmative defenses such as the alleged lack of jurisdiction in the District Court because of the earlier filing in the Superior Court of the defendant's action for declaratory relief respecting the rights of the parties to the premises, the existence of a valid and legally binding oral lease of the premises entitling the defendant to the right of possession of the premises, the invalidity of the lease between the Joneses and the Goffs on the ground that it was a fictitious lease intended solely for the purpose of evicting the defendant, and promissory estoppel.

On the return day, pursuant to D.C.Civ.R. 80D(d) and 14 M.R.S.A. § 6007, the plaintiffs filed a written allegation that the defendant's claim of title was frivolous and intended for delay. ² Trial date was set for May 7, 1981, and, after having examined the case to ascertain the truth of the plaintiffs' attack upon the defendant's claim of title, the trial judge did make an express finding that the defendant's claim of title was frivolous and intended for delay. In this posture of the case, the issue of title must be deemed having been decided, here, in favor of the plaintiffs, and the action properly did remain in the District Court for disposition of the other issues raised by the defendant in his pleadings. Bicknell Manufacturing Company v. Bennett, Me., 417 A.2d 414, 419 (1980). After full hearing, the District Court judge ultimately decided all other issues in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the premises, and ordered the entry of judgment for the plaintiffs for possession of the premises as specifically described in his order.

From the entry of judgment on July 13, 1981, the defendant timely appealed to the Superior Court, Oxford County. By motion filed in the Superior Court the plaintiffs sought an order against the defendant for him to pay rent into an escrow account, pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 6008, while in possession of the premises, should the issuance of the writ of possession be stayed pending disposition of the defendant's appeal. Though expressly stating in its order dated September 11, 1981, that the plaintiffs' motion was moot "as tenant defendant has removed from premises," the Superior Court, nevertheless, remanded the case to the District Court for the sole purpose of having the writ of possession issued by that court since no stay of the writ had been obtained pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 6008. On return of the case to the Superior Court following the issuance of the writ of possession by the District Court as mandated, the Superior Court on October 23, 1981, denied the defendant's appeal on the express finding that there was no error in the District Court judgment, nor in its exercise of jurisdiction, and remanded the case to the District Court once more. We now dismiss the defendant's appeal to this Court for mootness.

Initially, we take notice of the defendant's contention that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the instant action of forcible entry and detainer on the ground that an action for declaratory judgment respecting the rights of the parties inter se had already been commenced and entered in the Superior Court at the time the forcible entry and detainer action was filed in the District Court. Jurisdictional claims respecting subject matter present overriding issues which courts may examine at any stage of the proceedings, whether at the trial level or on appeal and whether called to the attention of the court or noted by the court on its own motion. Maine Central R. Co. v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co., Me., 395 A.2d 1107, 1118 (1978); Brown v. Manchester, Me., 384 A.2d 449, 451, n. 2 (1978); Walsh v. City of Brewer, Me., 315 A.2d 200, 210-11 (1974); Charles Cushman Co. v. Mackesy, 135 Me. 490, 492, 200 A. 505, 507, 118 A.L.R. 148 (1938).

If the courts below lacked jurisdiction, whether it be the Superior Court on appeal or the District Court at the initial level of the proceedings, this Court can proceed no further. See Fletcher v. Feeney, Me., 400 A.2d 1084, 1089 (1979). If the District Court lacked original jurisdiction of the subject matter, the subsequent appeals to the Superior Court and to this Court were legal nullities. See Casco Bank & Trust Company v. Johnson, Me., 265 A.2d 306, 308 (1970).

The District Court had already held that the defendant's claim of title was frivolous and intended for delay. In so finding, the court was ruling, preliminarily at least and subject to appeal, that the plaintiffs had title as against the defendant sufficient to maintain the action of forcible entry and detainer. In its ultimate decision, after hearing the evidence on all other issues open for determination, the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant for possession of the real estate involved. Thus, the defendant's appeal at this juncture was properly before the Superior Court, as the District Court judgment was a final adverse judgment. Open for decision at the appellate level in the Superior Court were the following issues to be addressed in the following order, and this on the record made in the District Court: 1) whether the District Court lacked jurisdiction of the forcible entry and detainer action as claimed by the defendant (Cf. Fern Construction Co., Inc. v....