Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Perreault v. Parker, 490 A.2d 203 (1985)

Citation
Perreault v. Parker, 490 A.2d 203 (1985)
Parent Document
Perreault v. Parker, 490 A.2d 203 (1985)
Jurisdiction
Maine (state)
Effective Date
1985-03-29

Other Sections in This Document (54)

Full Text

1,090 chars
Because he explicitly did not presume retaliation as the statute required, the Judge could not properly have weighed the evidence. This Court stretches the meaning of the above quoted statement of the District Court Judge when it states that he found plaintiff rebutted the presumption of retaliation by establishing that the basis for eviction was defendant’s refusal to pay the agreed rent in full. A fact finder who concludes that a presumption is not applicable is hardly likely to “find” that the presumption has been rebutted, let alone to evaluate whether the plaintiff had carried his burden under M.R.Evid. 301(a) of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence. The mere appearance of a non-retaliatory motive for eviction in the evidence is not sufficient, since M.R.Evid. 301(a) does not embody the “bursting bubble” theory of presumptions. Ambassador Ins. Co. v. Dumas, 402 A.2d 1297, 1299 (Me.1979). To find the presumption inapplicable was plain error that tainted beyond salvage the further finding regarding the basis for eviction.