McDonald V. McCallum

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland Docket No.: BCD-CV-~21:1 / /1 /v1 w -- Cutv\- ~j:.:;_'~/:z_o,y BERRY HUFF McDONALD MILLIGAN, INC. cl/b/a BH2M, Plaintiff ) ) ) ) ) ) v. MARK McCALLUM d/b/a GROUP I REALTY cl/b/a COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, d/b/a MOUNTAIN ROAD TRUST, MOUNTAIN HEIR FINANCIAL CORP., and GOOSEFARE ACRES, LTD., INC., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF BH2M'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff Berry Huff McDonald Milligan, Inc. (BH2M), doing business as BH2M, initiated this action on December 2, 2011, by filing a fotn·-cotmt complaint in Cumberland County Superior Court. 1 On December 22, 2011, Defendants answered and counterclaimed for: I) "money had and received,"!2 2) fraud, and 8) professional negligence. transferred to the Business and Consumer Court on January 4 ¢, The case was 2012. On December 10, 2012, the Court denied Defendant Mark McCallum's M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Currently pending is Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on Defendants' cotmterclaims, along with the Defendants' opposition and related materials. The court elects to decide the Plaintiffs motion without oral argument. See M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(7). 1 Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action against all Defendants: 1) breach of contract; 2) violation of M.R.S. § IllS (2011), (Count II); unjust enrichment (Count III); and quantum mer·uit (Count IV). The nature of this count is discussed further in the o1·der. 10 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed, except where noted. 3 McCalltun is a real estate develope ¢· based in Saco, and has been a client of BH2M for almost or through his entities:t- (S.S.M.F. 1f so years, either individually 5, 12; O.S.M.F. ~f ~f 5, 12.) BH2M is an engineering firm in Gorham, and Lester Berry is a professional engineer and shareholder of BH2M who provided engineering work for McCallum's subdivisions. (S.S.M.F. I, 4., 16). ~ ~~ 1, 4, 16; O.S.M.F. ~~ ~~ BH2M performed a variety of professional services for McCallum in fmtherance of development and approval of his subdivision projects. (S.S.M.F. ~~ 14; O.S.M.F. 1f 14<.) All professional services agreements between McCallum and BH2M were oral agreements. (S.S.M.F. ~ 13; O.S.M.F. 1f 13.)5 Through the lawsuit, BI-I2M is seelcing payment fi·om McCallum and/or his entities for approximately $50,000 worth of professional services on McCallum's various subdivision projects. (S.S.M.F. 1f 1f 17-20; ~ 1f O.S.M.F. 17-20.)6 Defendants' first counterclaim asserts that McCallum paid $3,537.50 to BH2M 111 error-as an overpayment-and seel{s judgment in that amount. (Answer 5.) The actual claim asserted, however, is not clear. The gravamen is that on one invoice, Defendants overpaid Defendants did not file an additional statement of material facts with their· opposition, but on Febnmr·y 15, 2018, Defendants submitted "Defendants' Response to Plain tin's Reply Statement of Material Facts." Such response is not permitted plll'suant to M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(s), nor did Defendants receive leave of the court to file their "response." The bulk of the "response" is legal argument regarding Plaintin's objections to Defendants' opposition and is not considered. Several of the numbered paragr·aphs, however, appear to be revisions to Defendants' opposing statement of material facts, changing several responses fi·om "denied" to "admitted," and the Cour·t has considered those in this order. In its r·eply brief, BH2M ar·gues that the Court should not treat the affidavit of Mark McCallum submitted in opposition to the motion for summar·y judgment as Defendants' additional statement of material facts. Although the Court does not understand that to be the intent of the affidavit, as it is cited in Defendants' opposing statement of material facts, the Court does not treat it as a statement of material fhcts pm·suant to M.R. Civ. P. 56. ·~ McCallum is the president and sole shareholder of Defendants Mountain Heir F'inancial Corp. and Goosefare Acres, Ltd., Inc., and Mountain Road Realty Trust. (S.S.l'vJ.F. ~~ 8-9, II; O.S.M.F. ~~ 8-9, II.) McCallum had an ownership interest in Gr·oup 1 Realty, Inc., but the company ceased doing business in 2009. (S.S.l'vl.F. ~ 7; O.S.M.F'. 11 7.) s Defendants qualify this statement to note that since 2001, all surveying contracts had to be in writing and ther·e were three such wl'itten agreements between BH2M and McCallum. (O.S.M.F'. ~ IS.) r. Defendants deny that McCallum is personally liable or responsible for these amounts. (O.S.M.F'. ~ 19.) :I 2 BH2M by $3,537.50, although through discovery, Defendants allege that the amount of the overpayment is actually $6,350. (Answer +-5; S.S.M.F. ~~ 23-2·1·; O.S.M.F. ~~ 23-24.) The claim could be a claim for setoff, or it could be a claim for "money had and received," because those are the first four words of the counterclaim. Defendants also assert the affirmative defense of recoupment based on the same set offc'lcts. (Answer ¢1 ¢.) The parties do not appear to dispute that McCallum's entities owe money to BH2M, but the amount is not fixed as of yet and McCallum's personal liability is disputed. (S.S.M.F. ~~ ~ 25-28; O.S.M.F. ~~ 25-28.) Defendants' second counterclaim relates to the conveyance of a parcel of land that was part of the Juniper Knoll subdivision in Saco, and appears to be either an intentional or negligent misrepresentation claim. McCallum owned a portion of the land underlying Lot 12 of the subdivision in question. (S.S.M.F. ~~ so, 32; O.S.M.F. ~~ 30, 32.) McCallum contends that Berry told him in September or October of 2009 and again in the fall of 2010 that all the land in the subdivision had to be held in one name for it to be approved by the City of Saco, but Berry denies maldng such a statement. (S.S.M.F. ~~ 34-36; O.S.M.F. ~~ 3'1 ¢-36.) In Aug·ust of 2010, however, the Saco City Planner told McCallum via e-mail that not all the property had to be held in the same name. (S.S.M.F. ~ 37; O.S.M.F. ~ 37.) McCallum transferred his interest in Lot 12 to Mezoian Development, LLC (Mezoian) in November of 2010. 7 (S.S.M.F. O.S.M.F. ~ ~ 40; '1·0.) McCallum contends he had an oral agreement with Mezoian that Mezoian would convey Lot 12 back to him after approval, but Mezoian has refused to do so. (S.S.M.F. ~~ ~~ 43-45; O.S.M.F. ~~ ¢J..S-·1·5.) McCal.lmn contends that he relied on Berry's misrepresentation to the effect that the under1ying property had to be in one ownership to secure the subdivision's approval,. (S.S.M.F. ~ '1·6; O.S.M.F. ~ 4·6.) 7 Although not explicit in the statements of material f.1cts, p ¢·esumably Mewian is the entity developing the subdivision in Saco with McCallum. 3 Defendants' third counterclaim is tor professional negligence related to road specifications in the Green Acres Court subdivision in Waterboro. Defendants assert that the road specifications created by BH2M for the subdivision far exceed the requirements of the Waterboro road ordinance. (S.S.M.F. ~ 1·9; O.S.M.F. ~ 4 ¢9.) \Vaterboro, LLC, owns the land underlying the Green Acres Comt subdivision; McCallum's corporation Mountain Heir Financial Corp. (MHFC) is a 29% owner of \Vaterboro, LLC. (S.S.M.F. ~~ ~~ 51-52; O.S.M.F. 51-52.) Neither McCallum nor MHFC is the manager of m· can control Waterboro, LLC; neither McCallum nor MHFC paid BH2M directly for the road design at Green Acres Com·t. (S.S.M.F. ~~ ~ .53-54·; O.S.M.F. ~ ~ 5:3-54 ¢.) Although the disputed road has not yet been built, Defendants assert that MHFC will incm· between $100,000 and $150,000 in unnecessary construction costs if Waterboro will not allow revision to the ·road specifications. (S.S.M.F. ~~ ~~ 50, 55; O.S.M.F. ~~5o, 55.) DISCUSSION I. STANDARD OF REVIEvV Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56( c), a moving party is entitled to summary judgment ''if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the afildavits, if any, ... show that there is no genuine issue as to any material f.:'lct set forth in those statements and that [the] party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." A party wishing to avoid summary judgment must present a prima facie case fot· each element of a claim or defense that is asserted. See Reliauce Nat'l Iudem. v. K11owles Indus. Svcs., 2005 ME 29, ~ 9, 868 A.2d 220. At this stage, the facts in the summary judg·ment record are reviewed "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Liglltfoot v. Sell. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME 24·, 6, 816 A.2d 6.3. 4 ~ "If material facts are disputed, the dispute must be resolved through fact-finding." Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158, ~ 7, 78 ¢1 ¢ A.2d 18. A factual issue is genuine when there is sufficient supporting evidence for the claimed fact that would require a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the facts at trial. See lnkel v. Livi11gston, 2005 ME 4·2, ~ 4 ¢, 869 A.2d 7 ¢M. "Neither party may rely on concluso1·y allegations or unsubstantiated denials, but must identify specific facts derived fi·om the pleadings, depositions, answers to intenogatories, admissions and affidavits to demonstrate either the existence or absence of an issue of fact." Kenuy v. Dep't q[Hummz Svcs., 1999 ME 158, ~ s, 74·0 A.2d 560 (quoting· Vim"ck v. Comm'r, 1 10 F.scl 168, 171 (Ist Cir. 1997)). II. ANALYSIS · BH2M asserts it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of Defendants' counterclaims. Fit-st, BH2M argues that the first counterclaim is an affirmative defense to BH2M's various claims for fees, rather than a cotmterclaim, and summary judgment should enter in its £wor. Next, BH2M argues that Defendants have £'liled to comply with the pleading requirements of M.R. Civ. P. 9(b) on the misrepresentation counterclaim. In the alternative, BH2M argues that any reliance by the Defendants on Berry's statement was not reasonable as a matter of law. Finally, in addition to challenging· Defendants' standing with respect to the claim for professional negligence, BH2M argues that Defendants cannot satisfy the element of causation. In addition, the Cotu't addresses the ripeness of the professional negligence claim. A. "Money had and received" or Setoff (Count I) BH2M asserts that the first counterclaim is an affirmative defense to BH2M's various claims for fees, rather than a counterclaim, and summary judgment should enter in its favor. Although the nature of that counterclaim is not clear, the Defendants do not appear to be asserting a claim for "money had and received," which are the first four words of the 5 counterclaim. "Money had and received" is a restitutionary cause of action that disaffirms the existence of a contract in the first instance. See Harmony Homes Corp. v. Cragg, 390 A.2d 1033, 1035 (Me. 1978). The counterclaim does not challenge the existence of the various contracts, only the amount due on the contracts. What the Defendants do appear to be asserting is that they are entitled to set off the overpayment against whatever else is owed to the Plaintiff. Defendants have already asserted the affirmative defense of recoupment. (Answer ¢1 ¢.) Setoff differs from recoupment in that recoupment is an affi1·mative defense for "a reduction of part of the plaintiffs damages because of a right in the defendant arising out of the same transaction." Clleung ·v. !Fu. 2007 ME 22, 11 19, 919 A.2cl 619 (quotation marks omitted). "A 'set-off is a demand that the defendant has against the plaintiff arising out of a transaction extrinsic to the plaintiffs cause of action." bmiss v. lvlethot Buick-Opel, l11c., 506 A.2d 212, 217 (Me. 1986)). Given that BH2M is seeking payment on numerous invoices for several different pmjects spanning a period of years, a claim of set off is perfectly appropriate. For example, BH2M might not prove any money owed on the invoices that Defendants assert were overpaid, and Defendants might prove the overpayment on those same invoices. In that case, recoupment would not be applicable, but a setoff of the amount of overpayment against another invoices would be appropriate. If BH2M were to fail to prove it is owed anything, then there might be an affirmative award to one or both Defendants in the amount of an overpayment. (S.S.M.F. ~~ In any event, the statements of material fact support a claim of setoff 23-2':1 ¢; O.S.M.F. 1111 23-24), and the Court will pet·mit this claim to move forward. 6 B. Misrepresentation (Count II) As noted, it is unclear whether Defendants are asserting a claim for intentional or negligent misrepresentation because Defendants have made no statement with respect to Berry's state of mind. Accordingly, BH2M first argues that the fi·aud claim does not comply with the pleading requirements of M.R. Civ. P. 9(b) because it "does not state, with either particularity or gene1·ally, that the alJeged misrepresentations by BH2M were made with malice, intention or lmowledge of their falsity." (MSJ IS.) See M.R. Civ. P. 9(b) ("In all averments of fl'ancl . . . , the circtunstances constituting fraud . . . shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be ave!Ted generally.") The statements of material fact to do not speak to Berry's state of mind other than to note: "Although it is unclear fi·om the Cmmterclaim, Mark McCallm11 contends that BH2M was either fraudulent or negligent in representing that all the land in the proposed Jtmiper Knoll subdivision had to be in one name for approval." (S.S.M.F. ~~ 47; O.S.M.F. ~ 4 ¢7.) In such circumstances where fl-aud has not been pled sufficiently, summary judgment on behalf of the defendant is appropriate. See !VIitec Part11ers, LLC v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 605 F.sd 617, 622-28 (8th Cir. 2010); ETC Jnt'l, I11c. v. Curriculum Adva11tage, Inc., 272 F. App'x 189, 141 (scl Cir. 2008); Darliug v. IV. Thrift & Loan, 600 F. Supp. 2d 189, 195-96 (D. Me. 2009) (indicating sunm1ru·y judgment may be entered on a fraud claim based on insufficient pleading·). BH2M also argues that regardless of whether the claim is for fi·audnlent or neg·ligent misrepresentation, each cause of action fails because of the lack of justifiable reliance, which is common to both causes of action. See Flaller/)1 v. !Vlutller, 2011 ME S2, ~ '1<5, (listing elements of a fl·aud claim, including justifiable reliance); Chapman v. 17 A.sd 64·0 Rideau~ 568 A.2d 829, 880 (Me. 1990) (setting out elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim, including 7 justifiable reliance). The basis for the misrepresentation claim is Berry's alleged statement to McCallum that in order to secure the subdivision's approval, the underlying property had to be in one ownership. (S.S.M.F. ~ 46; O.S.M.F. ~ 4·6.) Key to the issue of justifiable reliance is an e-mail that McCallum received fi·om Saco's city planner that stated the property for the subdivision did not need to be in one ownership. (S.S.M.F. ~ S7; O.S.M.F. ,f S7.) Notwithstanding· this e-mail, Defendants assert that Berry told McCallum that the subdivision had to be in unitary ownership for the subdivision to be approved and in reliance on this statement, McCallum trru1sferred his interest Lot 12 to Mezoian. (S.S.M.F. ~~ ·1·0, 46; O.S.M.F. ~~ +0, '1 ¢6.) "Reliance is unjustitied only if the plaintifflmows the representation is t:'llse or its £11sity is obvious." Dowliugv. BangorHous. Auth., 2006 ME 1S6, v. Stiuson, 2000 ME 17S, ,f ss, 760 A.2d 209). ~ 16,910 A.2d S76 (quoting F1·ancis In his deposition, BH2M asserts that McCallum stated that he knew that Ben·y's statement was inacctll'ate when it was said. (S.S.M.F. ~ S9.) In reviewing the deposition, and putting the cited portions in context, McCallmn does admit that he received the e-mail from the City but also states that at a meeting with Mezoian and Berry of BH2M: "And we went thet·e, and that's when Les [Berry] explained to everybody, and Bryce and me and Mike, that it really had to go all in one name for the DEP purposes because the site review law was a lot easier and the drainage could be done easier .... " (BH2M Exh. D at 268: 1-5.) BH2M focuses on the element of reliance, asserting that either the subdivision had to be in single ownership, or it did not. Viewed in the light most favorable to Defendru1ts, however, both the city planner's statement aud Berry's statement cou.ld be true: the subdivision was not required to be in one ownership, but the approval process would be easier ifit was. Thus, there is an additional issue of falsity. 8 In either case, Defendants' misrepresentation claim must fail. If Defendants are asserting that the misrepresentation was that the subdivision was required to be in single ownership, then the e-mail from the City mal{es Defendants' reliance on such a statement unjustifiable. If Defendants aYe asserting that the misrepresentation was that putting the subdivision in sing·]e ownership would make the approval process easiet~ f.:1iled to show how that statement was f.:1lse when it was made. then Defendants have Thus, the Court enters summary judgment in favor of BH2M on the misrepresentation claim both because it has been insufficiently pled and because Defendants have failed to make out all the essential elements of the cause of action in opposition to the motion for summary judg1nent. Iudem., 2005 ME 29, C. ~ See Reliance Nat'/ 9, 868 A.2d 220. Professional Negligence (Count III) At issue are both the justiciability of the professional negligence claim and the sufficiency of the claim. BH2M has raised the issue of Defendants' standing, but the Court also addresses the issue ofripeness. 1. Justiciability BH2M asserts Defendants do not have standing· to assert the professional neglig·ence claim because McCallum's corporation MHFC is a minority member in the Waterboro, LLC, who owns the underlying land of the subdivision and the actual client of BH2M. "Standing to sue means that the party ... has sufficient personal stake in the controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy." Halfway House Inc. v. City ofPortland, 670 A.2d 1377, 1S79 (Me. 1996). A claim for professional negligence requires the claimant to be injured by the acts of the defendant. See Garlaud v. Roy, 2009 ME 86, ~ 19, 976 A.2d 940. Without particularized injm·y to a personal, property, or peclmiary interest, the claimant has no standing· to bring the cause of action. See J\1ortg. Elec. Registratiou Sys. v. Smmders, 2010 ME 79, 9 ~ 7, 2 A.sd 289. Here, Defendants admitted that neither McCallum nor MHFC 1) owns the underlying land of the subdivision; 2) paid for the design of the road in question; and s) manages or controls the activities of Watet·boro, LLC. (S.S.M.F. ~~ 51, 5S-54; O.S.M.F. ~~ 51, 5S-54.) The Fi1·st Circuit has explained that [a] stocld10lder of a corporation does not acquire standing to maintain an action in his own right, as a shareholder, when the alleged injury is inflicted upon the corporation and the only injm·y to the shareholder is the indirect harm which consists in the diminution in value of his corporate shares resulting from the impairment of corporate assets. In tlus situation, it has been consistently held that the primary wrong is to the corporate body and, accordingly, that the shareholder, experiencing no direct harm, possesses no primary right to sue . . . . Actions to enforce corporate rights or redress injuries to the corporation cannot be maintained by a stocld10lder in his own name ... even though the injury to the corporation may incidentally result in the depreciation or destruction of the value of the stock. Inre Dein Host, Inc., 835 F.2d '1·02, <1·06 (1st Cir. 1987) (quotation marks omitted). There is no reason to think this rule would not be the same is Maine, but the issue of whether a minority member of an LLC can bring a cause of action in the member's own name on behalf of the LLC has not been addressed in Maine. Moreover, it is not clear to the Court that Defendants do not have a cause of action based on their own injury because BH2M is seeldng payment on two invoices related to the Waterboro project that are directed to McCallum and MHFC. 8 Nevertheless, because there is no evidence that the road that is the subject of Defendants' professional neg·ligence claim has been constructed, there is an issue of whether this claim is ripe. The ripeness doctrine prevents 'judicial entang·Jement in abstract disputes" and avoids "prematm-e adjudication." Marquis v. Town r.if Kennebuuk, 2011 ME 128, A.sd 861 (quotation marks omitted). ~ 18, 36 "For a case to be ripe there must be a gemune controversy and a concrete, certain, and immediate legal problem." See id. The primary s This raises the issue of whether two of the invoices regarding the \Vate1·boro project are conectly directed to McCallum and MHFC for payment it: as BH2M contends, Wate1·boro, LLC was the client. 10 concerns in a ripeness determination are "the fitness of the issue for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration." JFatetiJille Indus. Iuc. v. Fin. Auth. cif Me., 2000 ME ISS, ~f 22, 758 A.2d 986 (quotation mm·l{s omitted). The summary judgment record reveals that the professional negligence claim is not yet fit for decision because neither McCalluin nor MHFC has been damaged. Tellingly, Defendants have admitted that if \Vaterboro will not permit a revision of the road specifications, then MHFC will incm· $100,000 to $150,000 in additional costs. (S.S.M.F. O.S.M.F. ~ 50.) ~ 50; There is no evidence to suggest that such a revision has been sought or has been denied by Waterboro. Because the injury to Defendants, if any, is still an abstract concept, adjudication of this dispute would be premature. See klarquis, QO 11 ME 128, ~ 18, S6 A.scl 861. Moreover, there would be no hardship to either pat·ty in not adjudicating the dispute because Defendants could bring this claim in a separate action. Although two of the invoices for which BH2M is seeking payment appear to relate to the \V'aterboro project that forms the basis of the professional negligence claim, the counterclaims are permissive, not compulsory. M.R. Civ. P. 1S(a)(l) distinguishes between the time a pleading is served and the accrual of a counterclaim in determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory. Thus, to the extent a claim is not ripe at the time a pleading is served but ripens during the pendency of the suit, the claim would be only a permissive counterclaim and not a compulsory counterclaim. See M.R. Civ. P. l3(b ). Because the claim is not fit for acljudication and because no hardship will result to the parties in withholding the cotu·t's judgment, the Court concludes the claim is not ripe and non-justiciable. 11 2. The Merits Even if the ColU't were to consider the merits of the professional neg-ligence counterclaim, the outcome would be no different for Defendants. To prove professional negligence, "a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff to conform to a certain standard of conduct, and that the breach of that duty proximately caused an injm·y or loss to the plaintiff." Garland, 2009 ME 86, ~~ 19, 976 A.2d 9'1·0. BH2M asserts that the claim must fail because Defendants have failed to put forth any expert testimony and thus have not met the causation element. A professional negligence plaintiff must typically provide expert testimony, even at smmnary judgment, to prove causation because a jury does not have the specialized lmowledge of whether or not an alleged instance of negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's damag·es. Normau, Hanson & DeTroy, 1999 ME 196, 1111 13-14, See, e.g., Corey v. 742 A.2d 933. "[E]xpert testimony," howevet·, "may not be necessary where the negligence and haTmfu.l results are sufficiently obvious as to lie within [the] common knowledge" of the jtu'.}'· Searles v. Trs. of St. Joseph's College, 1997 ME 128, 11 10, 695 A.2d 1206 (quotation marks omitted). Defendants have indeed failed to provide any expert testimony on the issue of causation, which is a fatal flaw. The deficiencies in the statements of material fact are much broader, however. Notably, the statements of material fact are devoid the duty owed to Defendants by BH2M ot· any delineation of the standard of care, although presumably the duty was breached by exceeding the specifications of the road ordinance. (See S.S.M.F. 11 4·9; O.S.M.F'. 11 4 ¢9.) Moreover, the same flaw that renders this case unripe, i.e. lack of damage, also dooms the neglig-ence claim. Without any actual damage, or even an allegation of injury, there can be no professional neg-ligence. Accordingly, summat·y judgment will enter in favor of BH2M on this COUll t. 12 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of BI-I2M and against Defendants on Counts II and III of Defendants' Counterclaim, and DENIES summary judgment as to Count I of the Counterclaim. Ptu·surult to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the clerk is instructed to incorporate this order into the docket by reference. Date:Jff~/7t{ 2cJ / { A.M. Horton Business ru1d Consumer Court Entered on the Docl<et:?i:..clY2 ..:...\~V copies sent via Mail,__ ElerJronlwlly _ 13 BCD-CV-12-01 Berry Huff McDonald Christopher Berry, Esq. Law Office of Judith Berry 28 State Street Gorham, ME Jason Donovan, Esq. Rebecca Farnum, Esq. Thompson & Bowie P.O. Box 4630 Portland, ME v. Mark McCallum, et al James Audiffred, Esq. Law Office of James L. Audiffred 374 Main Street P.O. Box 1005 Saco, ME

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.