Opinion
Civil Action RE-14-78
10-06-2015
INGRID DO YON as Trustee of the Oscar Olson, Jr. 2012 Trust, u/a dated February 17, 2012, Plaintiff, v. NEIL F. SULLIVAN at al., Defendants.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS DAVID J JONES JENSEN B AIRD GARDNER HENRY ROY PIERCE JENSEN BAIRD ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS JESSICA A & NEIL F SULLIVAN: CHRISTOPHER PAZAR NATHANIEL R HUCKEL BAUER MICHAEL DEVINE DRUMMOND & DRUMMOND LLP ONE MONUMENT WAY PORTLAND ME 04101 PRO SES LAWRENCE H GENNARI & DENISE A PELLETIER GEORGE H BROWN & SHEILA E PHILLIPS PANAGIOTIS V & ANNE BARAS MARY BURKE TRUSTEE THOMAS S NAYMIE CHARLENE F PASTORE 11FREEDOM WAY WALPOLEMA 02081
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS DAVID J JONES JENSEN B AIRD GARDNER HENRY ROY PIERCE JENSEN BAIRD
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS JESSICA A & NEIL F SULLIVAN: CHRISTOPHER PAZAR NATHANIEL R HUCKEL BAUER MICHAEL DEVINE DRUMMOND & DRUMMOND LLP ONE MONUMENT WAY PORTLAND ME 04101
PRO SES LAWRENCE H GENNARI & DENISE A PELLETIER GEORGE H BROWN & SHEILA E PHILLIPS PANAGIOTIS V & ANNE BARAS MARY BURKE TRUSTEE THOMAS S NAYMIE CHARLENE F PASTORE 11FREEDOM WAY WALPOLEMA 02081
ORDER
John O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court
Plaintiff Ingrid Doyon, trustee of the Oscar Olson, Jr. 2012 trust, brings this action seeking a declaratory judgment clarifying rights in a parcel of land in York. At issue is whether the lot may be used to construct a garage. The court denied cross-motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the deed was ambiguous because there were several plausible, conflicting interpretations and whether the deed was "reasonably and equally susceptible" to one interpretation or another was a disputed issue of material fact. See Friedlander v. Hiram Kicker & Sons, Inc., 485 A.2d 965 (Me. 1984). Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration.
"Motions for reconsideration of an order shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented." M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(5). The rule "is intended to deter disappointed litigants from seeking 'to reargue points that were or could have been presented to the court on the underlying motion, '" Shaw v. Shaw, 2003 ME 153, ¶ 8, 839 A.2d 714, The court has discretion to deny such a motion without a hearing. MR. Civ. P. 7(b)(5).
Plaintiffs motion to reconsider argues that because the deed is susceptible to more than one interpretation, plaintiff is entitled to the least restrictive interpretation as a matter of law. The court explicitly considered and rejected this very argument in the order. The deed is ambiguous, which creates a triable issue of fact as to meaning. If the factfinder concludes that the deed is "reasonably and equally susceptible" to more than one interpretation, the least restrictive interpretation will apply. That determination, however, cannot be made on summary judgment because the meaning of the ambiguous deed and the choice among conflicting interpretations are disputed issues of material fact. The motion to reconsider is denied.
The entry shall be:
The Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED