Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 2601 (2026)

Actions in which trustee process used

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In connection with the commencement of any personal action, except actions only for specific recovery of goods and chattels, for malicious prosecution, for slander by writing or speaking or for assault and battery, trustee process may be used in the Superior Court or in the District Court.  
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2021 · leading case: In Re Maylin, 155 B.R. 605 (Bankr. D. Me. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Maylin, 155 B.R. 605 (Bankr. D. Me. 1993). “The writ was issued pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 2601 et seq. "Trustee process” is Maine’s procedural analogue to what other jurisdictions call pre-judgment garnishment.”
Sweeney v. Hope House, Inc., 656 A.2d 1215 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “Assault and Battery Exception Sweeney also argues that we should instruct the court that trustee process may not be denied on the basis of the assault and battery exception contained in 14 M.R.S.A. § 2601 (1980) and M.R.Civ.P. 4B(a).”
Vogt v. Churchill, 679 A.2d 522 (Me. 1996). “Although trustee process is not available solely on the basis of defamation claims, 14 M.R.S.A. § 2601 (1980), M.R.Civ.P. 4B(a), trustee process is available to a party seeking relief on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Calvert v. Corthell, 599 A.2d 69 (Me. 1991). “4B(a) and 14 M.R.S.A. § 2601 allow the use of trustee process in any personal action, “except actions only for specific recovery of goods and chattels, for malicious prosecution, for slander by writing or speaking, or for assault and battery.”
Loyal Erectors, Inc. v. Hamilton & Son, Inc., 312 A.2d 748 (Me. 1973). “14 M.R.S.A. § 2601. In the Court below, the principal defendant (Hamilton), by motion properly served on the plaintiff, sought the discharge of Ford as trustee, on the ground that the principal defendant’s credits with Ford at the time of service of the trustee process were…”
Sea Salt LLC v. Td Bank Na (D. Me. 2020). · cites it 3× “2 See 14 M.R.S. § 2601; M.R. Civ. P. 4A, 4B. (Order, 2:18- cv-00413-JAW, ECF No.”
Clavet v. Dean (Me. Super. Ct 2020). · cites it 2× “[b ]y reason of any money or other thing due from him to the principle defendant unless, at the time of the service of the summons upon him, it is due absolutely and not on any contingency[.”
Sanborn v. Prue, 757 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D. Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “Citing 14 M.R.S.A. § 2601 and Me.R.Civ. P. 4B(a), the defendant contends that attachment on trustee process is not available to the plaintiff in any event.”
Sea Salt LLC v. Td Bank Na (D. Me. 2021). “Kennebec Cty., No. 1:16-cv-00559-JAW, 2017 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.