The Ocean House Condominium Association, Inc. v. TD Bank

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MAINE YORK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO.: CV-16-244 THE OCEAN HOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, ORDER v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant. I. Background Before the court is defendant TD Bank's motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On October 12, 2016, plaintiff Ocean House Condominium Association, Inc. filed a complaint against defendant alleging unjust enrichment and seeking judgment in the amount of at least $9,628.47. Defendant timely filed its motion to dismiss arguing that the equitable claim of unjust enrichment must fail because there is a remedy at law available to plaintiff. The facts of this case are generally as follows: Dee Abdallah purchased a condominium unit at the Ocean House with a mortgage note executed in favor of defendant. Abdallah later defaulted on the mortgage and defendant brought a foreclosure action against her (RE-15-77). Abdallah also owes plaintiff a substantial amount in unpaid condominium association fees. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has been unjustly enriched by plaintiffs upkeep and maintenance of the condominium unit and surrounding property as the foreclosure case proceeds because the defendant would ordinarily have to pay for such services during other foreclosures. For the limited reason discussed below, the motion to dismiss is denied. 1 II. Discussion a. 12(b)(6) On a motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) the court examines the "complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." Moody v. State Liquor & Lottery Comm'n, 2004 ME 20, ,r 7, 843 A.2d 43 (quoting In re Wage Payment Litig. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000 ME 162, ,r 3, 759 A.2d 217). The material allegations in the complaint are deemed admitted for the purposes of deciding the motion. Id. "A dismissal should only occur when it appears 'beyond doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his claim."' Id. (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463,465 (Me. 1994)). b. Unjust Enrichment The following three elements must be proven to establish a claim for unjust enrichment: [One] a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; [two] an appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; and [three] the acceptance or retention by the defendant of the benefit under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without payment of its value. Aladdin Elec. Assocs. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 645 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Me. 1994). The facts in the complaint taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff satisfy the first two elements. Defendant is receiving a benefit from plaintiffs upkeep of the property while the foreclosure case is pending, and defendant is aware of that benefit. However, parties dispute whether plaintiff has established a prima facie case of the third element. 1 "[T]o pursue unjust enrichment in equity, the plaintiff must lack an adequate remedy at 1 To the extent plaintiff argues the slow pace of the foreclosure proceedings contributed to the unjustness in these circumstances, the court finds that such delay is in large part not attributable to defendant, but rather the court's scheduling restraints. 2 law." WahlcoMetroflex, Inc. v. Baldwin, 2010 ME 26, 1 22, 991 A.2d 44. Whether plaintiff lacks a remedy at law is itself a question of law. Keniston v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2007 ME 29, 19 n.6, 918 A.2d 436. "A remedy at law is adequate if it '(1) is as complete, practical and as efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity, and (2) is obtainable as of right."' WahlcoMetroflex, Inc., 2010 ME 26,122, 991 A.2d 44 (quoting In re Real Property ofFormer Wife, K, 297 A.2d 424,426 (Del. Ch. 1972)). Here, plaintiff may have an adequate legal remedy. The Maine Condominium Act provides the Association "a lien on a unit for any assessment levied against that unit or fines imposed against its unit owner from the time the assessment or fine becomes due." 33 M.R.S. §1603-113(a) (2016). The Act also states such lien is junior to "[a] first mortgage recorded before or after the date on which the assessment sought to be enforced becomes delinquent." §1603-113(b). However, it is unclear based on the facts as alleged in the complaint whether such lien exists at this time and whether that remedy would provide relief that is as practical and efficient as equitable relief. III. Conclusion Therefore, defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P.79(a). DATE: May .lL, 2017 John H. O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Maine Superior Court s)~ ENTERED ON THE DOCKET ON:_ _ __ 3 CV-2016-244 ATTORNEY(S) FOR PLAINTIFF PATRICK BEDARD, ESQ. BEDARD AND BOBROW PO BOX 366 ELIOT ME 03903 ATTORNEY(S) FOR DEFENDANT: ANDREA HOLBROOK, ESQ. STEPHANIE WILLIAMS, ESQ. DUANE MORRIS LLP 2 MONUMENT SQUARE, SUITE SOS PORTLAND ME 04101

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.