Terrell v. McKenney

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss. CIVIL ACTION
Docket No. RE-2020-22

TIMOTHY TERRELL,
Plaintiff,

eee ee ee
Vv. JUDGMENT

ee ee
BARBARA McKENNEY,
Defendant.

By amended complaint, Plaintiff Timothy Terrell (hereinafter Terrell)

brings an equitable claim for Unjust Enrichment against Defendant Barbara

McKenney (hereinafter McKenney). A bench trial was held on January 26,

2023. Plaintiff was present with his attorney, Kevin P. Sullivan, Esquire, and

Defendant was present with her attorney, Alice Knapp, Esquire. Having

considered the evidence presented at trial as well as the arguments of the

parties, a decision is in order.

Terrell and McKenney have known each other for over 30 years. Both

parties had been previously married and have children from prior

relationships. In 2008, their friendship grew into a romantic relationship.

Terrell, who was going through a divorce, was experiencing financial

difficulties. Although he owned his own house at 265 New Road in Richmond,

Maine, Terrell was at risk of default on the mortgage. McKenney also owned

her own house (without a mortgage) and wanted to help Terrell <get his life on

track= and avoid foreclosure. At McKenney9s invitation, Terrell moved into her
residence at 908 Alexander Reed Road in Richmond, Maine in September of

2008.! The parties lived together at McKenney9s residence for approximately

11 years until Dec 28, 2018, when Terrell abruptly ended the relationship.

Throughout Terrell did not pay rent although he did contribute to some of the

household bills.

Prior to moving in with McKenney, Terrell suffered a back injury at Bath

Iron Works where he was employed.3 After the injury, he was unable to work

for a period, and received worker9s compensation benefits. Terrell was

prescribed Oxycodone, and his prescribed dosage increased over time. Terrell

used Oxycodone for 7 years, including when cohabitating with McKenney. He

ultimately became addicted to the substance. He also used alcohol regularly.

Terrell attended rehabat the encouragement of McKenney and support of

his adult daughter. Terrell completed an in-patient and out-patient treatment

program and engaged in successful medication assisted treatment (MAT). With

1 Terrell also kept the New Road property. His daughter moved in and paid the bills.
The daughter could not always afford the monthly mortgage payments, so Terrell
continued to help her with payments. Eventually, Terrell was able to refinance the
mortgage and restructure the loan which allowed his daughter to take over the
payments. Based on the evidence, it is unclear whether Terrell just had an informal
arrangement with his daughter or if there was a formal transfer in title.
2 While both parties agreed that the relationship was strained prior to this for a
number of reasons, the court accepts McKenney9s assertion that she was still
committed to the relationship and was surprised by Terrell9s actions in late December.
3 The exact dates when Terrell was working as compared to when he was injured and
collecting workers compensation benefits is unclear from the evidence. The court does
find that when Terrell was working, he was paid at a rate of $35.00 an hour, and he
earned between $50,000 to $60,000 per year at that rate.
McKenney9s encouragement, Terrell made a claim against Bath Iron Works.*#

Terrell settled with Bath Iron Works in either late 2013 or early 2014 for

between $300,000 and $350,000. He left employment with Bath Iron Works

later in 2014.

When Terrell moved in with McKenney, his school age son, Travis, who

was just entering the 3" grade, moved in as well. Travis lived with Terrell and

McKenney on the weekdays (Monday through Friday) and spent most weekends

with his mother. Terrell lost his childcare for Travis, and McKenney, who has a

BA in early childhood development and was previously employed as a social

worker at Head Start for 7 years, helped with Travis. Beyond basic care of

Travis, McKenney made sure he got on and off the bus, helped him with his

daily homework, attended parent teacher conferences with Terrell, and used

her skills to assist him with his language, social and emotional development,

areas which Travis was having some difficulties. As Terrell9s reliance on

opioids and alcohol increased, McKenney9s daily caretaking of Travis also

increased.

Considerable testimony was provided regarding the contributions made

(or not made) towards living expenses by Terrell. There was substantial

dispute as to the level of payment and involvement Terrell had in the day-to-

day expenses. The court finds that although Terrell often contributed to the

4 The evidence is unclear as to when, exactly, Terrell engaged in the substance use
treatment or when he sought and obtained the settlement from BIW, but the parties
agree he attended treatment prior to the settlement he reached with BIW and the
settlement was before he purchased the garage, likely early 2013.
living and household expenses over time, there were many expenses that

McKenney paid alone and periods of time when Terrell was marginally

contributing. By 2013 or 2014, after receiving his settlement from BIW, the

court finds that Terrell contributed more, and the two shared household

expenses more equally during the latter part of the relationship. However,

Terrell never paid any rent while he lived with McKenney.

In addition to living expenses, McKenney paid a $8,000.00 down

payment and the registration fees on a new pickup truck for Terrell. McKenney

paid several of the first payments on the truck after purchase. Over time,

Terrell took over the payments by 2012. The title was originally in McKenney9s

name, but she signed the title over to Terrell when the relationship ended.

While this evidence demonstrates the relationship between the parties and the

manner in which they shared expenses, the court does not find that there was

any expectation of repayment or any assertion of a quid pro quo financial

relationship.

Terrell has skills as a mechanic and enjoys working on automobiles and

other similar projects. Wanting to expand on this interest, Terrell asked

McKenney if he could build a garage on the property where he could work on

vehicles. McKenney told Terrell that she <didn9t care= if he built a garage, and

that he could do so if he wanted to. McKenney maintained that she did not

really want the garage, but that Terrell <was an adult= and so she was not going

to stop him <if he really wanted to= build it. In October 2021 (after
approximately five years of living together), Terrell hired Maine Contractor9s

Group, LLC to construct a garage. The contract was between Terrell and Maine

Contractor9s Group, and the building permit was in Terrell9s name alone. The

garage was designed by Terrell with the assistance of the contractor and

designed sufficient in size to allow him to install a vehicle lift. McKenney was

aware that Terrell was working with the builder on design, but she was not

involved in the design specifications or negotiations. The court finds that

there was no contract and no agreement between the parties regarding the

garage.

The total contracted cost of the project was $37,989.00. Pl.9s Exhibit 4,

p. 4. To build the garage, Terrell financed the cost by taking out a loan in the

amount of $37,989 at his credit union. The loan was in his name alone and

secured by money in his account from his back injury settlement. Pl.9s Exhibit

S. His monthly payment for the loan is $198.73. See Pl.9s Exhibit 6. Upon

full repayment of the loan, he will have paid $47,715.58. Pl.9s Exhibit 5.

McKenney was unaware that Terrell financed the garage, and rather believed

that he had paid for the construction out of his BIW settlement funds. It was

not until after the parties separated, Terrell moved out of McKenney9s

residence, and this suit ensured did she learn of the outstanding loan.

McKenney did not agree to finance the construction or to the terms of the loan.

The evidence does not support any intent by McKenney to take on or repay any

loan and the court finds as such.
The construction was completed by November of 2014. No oral or

written contract or agreement was made between the parties as to the

ownership of the garage or the intended use of the garage beyond the

understanding that it was Terrell9s garage for his mechanic work.

The new garage had 12-foot ceilings; a height specifically necessary

according to accommodate a car lift. Once completed, Terrell outfitted the new

garage with a car lift, cabinets, benches, and various tools all to allow him to

work on vehicles in his spare time. Terrell used the garage throughout the

time he lived there to work on cars and occasionally worked on other people9s

vehicles. Most of the items in the garage belonged to Terrell except for a few

miscellaneous items such as a bucket and a leaf blower which belonged to

McKenney. Generally, Terrell9s equipment and vehicles occupied both bays of

the garage. The court finds that there were occasions when McKenney parked

her vehicle in there, but not routinely. The court finds that the garage was

Terrell9s garage.

The parties began to have difficulties in their relationship in late 2018.

As the difficulties increased, so did Terrell9s alcohol consumption. On

December 28, 2018, Terrell informed McKenney that the relationship was over.

Although she recognized that the two had grown apart, she was still committed

to the relationship and was surprised by his ending of it. After more than a

year of trying to make their relationship work, Terrell finally moved out of

McKenney9s residence in March of 2020. During the year prior to vacating the
residence, Terrell spent some time in a hotel and some time at the residence

with McKenney. McKenney throughout, even after Terrell moved out

permanently, allowed him to use the garage to store all his tools and

equipment and to work on his vehicles. Many of the items in the garage were

semi-permanent fixtures such as a hard-wired compressor and other electrical

items, a vehicle lift, and tool benches which were bolted to the floor.

Terrell filed the instant suit seeking payment of <at least $42,000 for

unjust enrichment= along with an award of attorney fees and costs in October

of 2020. The court finds that as late as June 22, 2021, Terrell continued to

maintain personal property within the garage, and that at no time were efforts

made to remove the structure from McKenney9s property.

In May of 2021, McKenney worked to secure the removal and sale of

Terrell9s mechanic9s lift, with Terrell9s consent. Terrell was given the $2,200.00

received from that sale and McKenney retained no portion of the sale. By letter

dated May 19, 2021, McKenney informed Terrell that she wished him to take

immediate steps to remove the garage from her property as she did not want it

on her property. McKenney maintained her desire to have the garage removed

from her property at the hearing.

Discussion

Terrell contends that McKenney has been unjustly enriched by the

garage built on her property by Terrell. To prevail under the equitable principle

of unjust enrichment, Terrell must prove three elements: first, that a benefit

has been conferred upon McKenney by Terrell; second, an appreciation or
knowledge by McKenney of the benefit; and third, that McKenney9s <acceptance

or retention of the benefit was under such circumstances as to make it

inequitable for [her] to retain the benefit without payment of its value.= Me.

Eye Care Assocs., P.A. v. Gorman, 2008 ME 36, ¢ 17, 942 A.2d 707.

In this case, Terrell has demonstrated that a garage was built on

McKenney9s property and that at the time the garage was designed and

subsequently built, McKenney was aware of the plan and acquiesced to

Terrell9s desire to construct the structure to use as his mechanic9s garage. The

degree of McKenney9s understanding or <appreciation= of any benefit is less

clear. As McKenney credibly testified, she believed that Terrell <was an adult=

and she was not going to stop him <if he really wanted to= build the garage.

Although McKenney was aware that Terrell wished to build a garage on

land owned by her and land where Terrell was also living, she did not engage in

any manner in the design or construction of the garage. As stated above, no

contractual agreement existed between the parties regarding the garage.

Terrell chose to erect the structure for his own use on land owned by someone

else and then to leave the premises. Even after the dissolution of the

relationship, and Terrell9s departure from her home, McKenney allowed Terrell

to maintain personal belongings in the garage for a period, and it was not until

the filing of the present lawsuit did McKenney finally request that Terrell

remove his belongings from her property, including her request that he remove
the garage. McKenney does not wish or intend to retain the structure, and

therefore, it is not a benefit conferred upon her. ®

Based on the evidence presented and under the circumstances of this

case, the court finds that it is not inequitable for McKenney to retain any value

that the presence of this garage adds to her property were Terrell to choose to

leave the garage in place.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence adduced at trial and pursuant to Maine law, it is

hereby ORDERED as follows:

Judgment shall enter in favor of Defendant. Further, each party shall be

responsible for his or her own attorney fees.

The clerk shall incorporate this Order on the docket by reference

pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Dated: May 25, 2023
Deborah P. Cashman
Justice, Maine Superior Court

5 At trial, Terrell focused on proving the cost of the garage, including the interest on
the loan he took without McKenney9s knowledge. This misses the mark, however,
because the measure of damages is the value of the benefit, and as applied to these
facts, would require proof of the increase in value to McKenney9s real estate
attributable to the improvements. While the cost of improvement is evidence that the
court can consider when determining enhanced value, the evidence presented is
insufficient to demonstrate any change in the value of McKenney9s real estate based
on this construction. <Recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is measured
by the value of the benefits that the plaintiff proves are actually received and retained
by the defendant... .= Court v. Kiesman, 2004 ME 72, 9 15 n.3, 850 A.2d 330, 334,
quoting A.F.A.B., Inc. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 639 A.2d 103, 106 (Me. 1994).

9 Entered on the docket >>. Hb bo03