Gagnon v. Cannon
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE or MAINE SUPERIOR COL'RT CIVIL DOCK ET DOCKET NO. CARSC-CV-14-167 AROOSTOOK, ss DAVJD L. GAGNON and STEVEN GAGNON PLAINTIFFS vs . ) ) ) ) SHEILA CA~l\ON DEFENDANT ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On July 16, 2015 Defendant filed a motion for summary judgement. For the reasons set fol'th below, Defendant's motion is denied. BACKGROUND This action involves a piece of property located in Van Buren previously owned by Aurel and Albertine Gagon. In 1996 the Gagnon' s were involved in discussions to sell the property to Peter Lagasse. Legasse paid the agreed upon amount and in January of 1997, the Gagnon 's had a deed and transfer tax form prepared to convey the prope1ty to :vfr. Lagasse. The Gagnon ' s purportedly signed the documents and had them mailed to Mr. Lagasse. See Affidavit of Anthony Martin dated June 11, 2015. The deed however was never recorded. Letters have been produced iJurportedly authored by Mr. Lagasse indicating generally his frustration in dealing ,>.•ith the Gagnon' s, that he did not intend to record the deed, and that he wanted his money back. See Affidavit of Anthony Marlin dated August 12, 20 l 5. The taxes on the property were not paid and ultimately in 1998 and 1999 the Town of Van Buren filed with the registry of deeds tax lien ce11ificatcs against Aurel and Albe11ine Gagnon. The taxes remain unpaid. In September 2011 the Tow111)f Van Buren conveyed the property 10 Sheila Cannon by a municipal quitclaim deed. DlSCOSSJON The Plaintiffs in this action are heirs of Aurel and Albertine Gagnon. They claim that the tax lien filing was ineffective to divest Aurel and Albertine Gagnon of title, and that Ihey should be declared to have superior title to the property. Plaintiffs also argue that the deed to Mr. Lagasse was not accepted and therefore title remained vested with Aurel and Albertine. Sec Hood v. Hood, 384 A.2d 706 (Me. 1978). In her motion for summary judgment, defendant argues that Aurel and Albe11inc Gagnon no longer owned the property and had divested themselves of any interest when they delivered the deed to Mr. Lagasse, (See Wax/e,· v. Waxler, 699 A.2d 1161 (Me. 1997)) and therefore the heirs of Aurel and Albertine, Plaintiffs herein, have no standing or legal basis to bring this action. Plaintiffs counter that Mr. Lagasse did not accept the deed from Aurel and Albertine, so title remained with the Gagnon's. Sununary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the facts entitle a party to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56 (c); In Re Estate or Davis, 2001 ME 106, ~,7, 775 A.2d 1127, 1129. The Court should grant a defendant's motion for summary judgment if the evidence favoring the plainti ff is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff as a matter of law. Cm1i~ y. Po11er, 2001 ME 158, ~7, 784 A.2d 18,21. A fact is material when it has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit. Kem1 y. Dep' l of Iluman Services, 1999 ME 158, ~3, 740 A.2d 560, 562. An issue is genuine if sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute exists to require a choice between the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial. Id. In this case material facts remain. Roth Plaintiff and Defendant rely on affidavits made by Anthony Ma11in, Tax Assessor for the Town of Van Buren. The affidavits taken together make the suggestion that a deed signed by Aurel and Albertine Gagnon was mailed to Mr. Lagasse, but that Mr. Lagasse did not record the deed and was not satisfied with the transaction. A question of fact that can only be resolved by trial remains whether there was delivery to and acceptance by :tvlr. Lagasse of the deed sufficient to pass title to Mr. Lagasse and divest Aurel and Albertine of title. Whether Aurel and Albe11ine were divested of title is a question of fact that must he resolved in order to ultimately rn1e on this case. Accordingly, :ndant's motion for summary judgmen~/?x n.,.~4 0:. 2016 U ·, Justice, Superior Court
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.
