The Cote Corporation v. Kelley Earthworks, Inc.

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed summary judgment enforcing The Cote Corporation’s mechanic’s lien against property owned by Kelley Earthworks, Inc. The court upheld the underlying lien, damages, and denial of Kelley’s requested relief under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but held that the mechanic’s lien statutes required a sale of the property rather than substitution of a money judgment. The judgment was vacated and remanded for entry of an order providing for sale of the entire property or a suitable portion.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff moving for summary judgment must establish each element of its claim through properly supported, undisputed material facts; the nonmoving party's inadequate or nonexistent response does not relieve the plaintiff of that burden. Here, Cote satisfied that burden.
2. The record established that Cote performed the work with Kelley's consent and that RC's leasehold interest constituted a sufficient legal interest in the land to permit the lien to attach to the land rather than only to the asphalt plant.
3. The court properly relied on Cote's invoices and affidavit to award $29,990 because the uncontroverted record provided competent evidence of the amount owed, and damages need not be proved to mathematical certainty.
4. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kelley's Rule 60(b) motion because Kelley failed to show fraud or a plain and unmistakable injustice and had not taken timely legal steps to protect its interests in the original litigation.
5. When a mechanic's lien is established, Maine's mechanic's lien statutes require a sale of the property subject to the lien to satisfy it; a money judgment is authorized only for any deficiency remaining after the sale. The trial court therefore abused its discretion by eliminating the sale altogether and substituting a money judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment enforcing Cote's mechanic's lien was proper despite Kelley's failure to respond to the complaint or oppose the motion.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record established the statutory requirements for the mechanic's lien, including owner consent, the lessee's legal interest in the land, and damages.
3. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying Kelley relief under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
4. Whether the mechanic's lien statutes required the court to order a sale of the property subject to the lien rather than substitute a money judgment as the primary remedy.

Disposition

vacated