Ogden v. Labonville

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
WALDO, SS. DOCKET NO. RE 18-08

MARK & JACQUELYN OGDEN )
Plaintiffs )
) FINDINGS, DECISION &
V. ) JUDGMENT
)
JOEDY LABONVILLE )
Defendant )

Procedural status

This matter came before the Court to address the Plaintiffs' Complaint for
ejectment, and the Defendant's Counterclaim for betterments. The Couti
previously addressed many of the claims set fo1ih in the Complaint and
Counterclaim in the Court's September 23, 2019 Order granting paiiial
summary judgment. The remaining issues not addressed by that prior Order
were taken up at a trial on January 3, 2020. All paiiies were present and
paiiicipated in the trial proceedings.

The Plaintiffs' entitlement to an ejectment order in their favor was
determined by the Court's September 23, 2019 Order. The remaining trial
issue focused on the Defendant's Counterclaim for her entitlement to
bette1ments made to the prope1iy which is the subject of this dispute. This
same property, and this same Defendant, were the subject of a prior
ejectment proceeding and Judgment issued by this Court on or about August
26, 2015. Pursuant to the findings made in the earlier Judgment, and in
accordance with the Comi's Order dated October 9, 2019 in this case, the

1
parties stipulated that the Defendant's entitlement to bette1ments based upon
the improvements made to the prope1iy prior to October 22, 2015 is the
amount that was established by that prior Judgment. Thus, the remaining
issue of dispute for determination at the January 3, 2019 trial was the
existence and value of any betterments to the prope1iy made by the
Defendant since October 22, 2015.

FINDINGS

The focus of Defendant Labonville's evidence generally centered around
three areas which she described as improvements to the property at issue: 1.
Driveway improvements; 2. Chimney repairs; and 3. Fencing and loam
expenditures. Specifically, Labonville introduced evidence of receipts which
purp01ied to demonstrate expenditures which were made since October 22,
2015 for materials or services rendered at the prope1iy. The Comi is not
persuaded, however, that the actual expenditure made by the Defendant is
the proper measure of damages in dete1mining any claim for betterments.
The proper measure of damages in such an award is "the increased value of
the premises" based on any improvements made on the premises by the
claimant. Title 14 M.R.S. §6959. Thus, although the defendant's receipts for
expenditures made may be relevant in demonstrating some of the work
undertaken, the amounts included in such receipts do not equate to the
amount of the betterment Judgment which should be awarded.

In this regard, the Court finds that the fence related work and delivery of
loam or composting material did not result in any increase in the value of the
premises. Such expenditures ce1iainly were helpful and valuable to the

2
Defendant herself in assisting to feed and provide for her family, but did not
constitute a "betterment" for which she is entitled to payment. Moreover,
any such expenditures were not "judicious and proper under the
circumstances". 14 MRS§ 6959.

The Court does find that the improvements made by the Defendant to the
driveway since October 22, 2015 did improve the value of the premises.
Accordingly, the Court finds that such improvements constitute a betterment
for which the Defendant is entitled to payment. Specifically, the Court finds
that the work related to the driveway improvements increase the value of the
premises by $500.

Additionally, the evidence relating to the chimney repairs made at the
premises after October 22, 2015 also constituted a betterment which
increases the value of the premises at issue. In this regard, the Court
concludes that the increase in the value of the premises for the chimney
improvements equaled $1000.

The final issue the Comi must resolve in determining the total value of the
betterments the Defendant is entitled to receive relates to the application of
any "credit" which a prior owner of the premises, Theodore Barnes, was
entitled to receive. As noted above, a prior Order of this Couti dated August
26, 2015 ordered Mr. Barnes to pay betterments in the total amount of
$19,000. Subsequent to that Court Order, the current Defendant's now
deceased spouse, Richard Labonville, was adjudicated on February 22, 2016,
as having committed the offense of Unlawful Cutting of Trees on the same
premises. As paii of that adjudication, Mr. Labonville was ordered to pay

3
Mr. Barnes $750 in restitution, and that furthermore, satisfaction of the
restitution payment would be realized as an offsetting credit toward the
$19,000 betterment payment Mr. Barnes was required to pay the
Labonvilles.

It is not disputed that Mr. Baines never paid the bette1ment award
established by previous Orders of this Court. This Comi concludes that the
$750 "credit" alluded to in the proceeding brought by the State against
Richard Labonville for unlawful cutting of trees was personal as between
Richard Labonville and the prior prope1iy owner, Theodore Baines. Since
Mr. Barnes never, in fact, paid the bette1ment claim the Comi determined
was due, the application of the $750 "credit" is moot and is not in any way
transferable or available to the current Plaintiffs in this matter.

CONCLUSIONS

The Comi previously established that the Defendant is entitled to a
Judgment in her favor, with respect to the Counterclaim for betterments in
the amount of $19,000, plus interest, for the improvements which were made
to the prope1iy prior to October 22, 2015. The additional amount of
bette1ments to which the Defendant is entitled based upon improvements
made to the prope1iy since October 22, 2015 equals $1500. The Court
understands that the paiiies do not dispute that statutory interest on the initial
$19,000 judgment amount accrued at the rate of 6.27% from August 26,
2015 to May 18, 2018 when the funds in the amount of $21,420.17 were
deposited with the Court by the Plaintiffs. The additional principal amount
of $750 plus the additional post-judgment interest for that amount for the

4
original $19,000 bette1ment award remains outstanding, in addition to the
newer betterment award in the amount of $1,500.

In accordance with title 14 MRS §6705, Judgment for the Plaintiffs on their
claim for Ejectment shall not be entered for 30 days from the date of this
Decision, during which time the Plaintiffs may make their election on the
record to abandon the premises.

In accordance with Title 14 MRS §6961, if the Plaintiffs do not elect to
abandon the premises, no writ of possession shall issue on their Judgment,
unless, within one year from the rendition of this Judgment in their favor,
they pay to the Clerk of this Court, the additional sums due on the judgment
representing the betterments and improvements ordered to the Defendant on
her Counterclaim, with interest thereon from the date of this Decision. If the
Plaintiffs do not abandon the property, the remaining additional payment
payable to the Clerk for the benefit of the Defendant equals $2,435.90 ($750
unpaid "credit," plus $185.09 unpaid interest on the "credit" from 2/26/16 to
1/29/20, plus $1,500 in additional betterments since 10/ 22/15)

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Findings, Decision and Judgment,
by reference, in accordance with MRCivP 79(a).

on Docket:~f&!/XO
5