## Facts

- EWE Limited Partnership (EWE) owned and operated a fifteen-room building in Bangor, Maine, where individuals rented rooms and shared common areas.
- Douglas J. Degenhardt occupied a room in the building as his residence for an extended period, and many occupants stayed for months rather than for short, transient visits.
- Degenhardt had continuing possession of his room, kept personal belongings there, and used shared facilities such as bathrooms and a kitchen.
- After Degenhardt was arrested for disorderly conduct and spent a night in jail, he returned to the building the next day.
- EWE told Degenhardt that he was no longer welcome and that he could not return to his room.
- Police escorted Degenhardt from the premises.
- EWE did not obtain a court order and did not use Maine’s forcible entry and detainer (FED) process before excluding Degenhardt.
- Degenhardt sued EWE, alleging an illegal eviction (self-help ouster/lockout) in violation of 14 M.R.S. § 6014.
- The District Court ruled for Degenhardt, awarding actual damages (including $590) and statutory damages; EWE appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (Law Court).

## Issues

1. Whether EWE’s building qualified as a “lodging house” for purposes of 30-A M.R.S. §§ 3837–3838, allowing EWE to remove Degenhardt as a “guest” without using the FED process.
2. If the building was not a statutory “lodging house,” whether EWE’s exclusion of Degenhardt without judicial process constituted an illegal eviction under 14 M.R.S. § 6014.
3. Whether the trial court correctly calculated the damages available under 14 M.R.S. § 6014, including statutory damages measured by rent.

## Decision

- The Law Court affirmed the trial court’s findings and conclusion that EWE’s property did not meet the statutory meaning of a “lodging house” for purposes of the guest-removal statutes.
- Because the lodging-house exception did not apply, the Law Court affirmed that EWE could not remove Degenhardt through self-help and that EWE’s conduct violated 14 M.R.S. § 6014.
- The Law Court affirmed the trial court’s liability ruling and affirmed the $590 award of actual damages.
- The Law Court vacated a portion of the damages award related to § 6014’s statutory-damages component and remanded for entry of an amended judgment consistent with the correct statutory calculation.

## Legal Principles

- The lodging-house statutes in 30-A M.R.S. §§ 3837–3838 create a limited exception to Maine’s general rule requiring removal of residential occupants through the FED process in 14 M.R.S. §§ 6001–6016.
- Whether a property is a “lodging house” for purposes of those guest-removal statutes depends on how it is operated and the nature of the occupancy (short-term, transient guests versus long-term residential occupancy), not merely on labels, paperwork, or licensing descriptions.
- When an occupant’s relationship to the premises is residential in character (extended stay, continuing possession, and use as a home), the occupant is entitled to landlord-tenant protections, and the owner must use the FED process to regain possession.
- A landlord’s process-free exclusion of a residential occupant can constitute an illegal eviction under 14 M.R.S. § 6014, triggering liability for actual damages and a statutory-damages award within the range set by the statute.
- Statutory damages under § 6014 must be calculated within the limits the statute sets (tied to the rent measure specified by the statute); awards outside that measure must be corrected on appeal.

## Conclusion

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that EWE’s building, operated largely as long-term residential housing, was not a statutory “lodging house” whose occupants could be summarily ejected as “guests,” so EWE’s self-help removal of Degenhardt without the FED process violated 14 M.R.S. § 6014; the court affirmed liability and actual damages but vacated part of the statutory-damages award and remanded for an amended judgment.


Degenhardt v. EWE Limited Partnership, 13 A.3d 790 (2011)