Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 7481 (2026)

Small Claims Act; jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

There is established a small claims proceeding for the purpose of providing a simple, speedy and informal court procedure for the resolution of small claims. It shall be an alternative, not an exclusive, proceeding. The District Court shall have jurisdiction of small claims actions. The District Court shall have the power to grant monetary and equitable relief in these actions. Equitable relief is limited to orders to return, reform, refund, repair or rescind. [PL 1981, c. 667, §2 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1981, c. 667, §2 (NEW).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Taylor v. Walker, 173 A.3d 539 (Me. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Taylor v. Walker, 173 A.3d 539 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “Although the appeal is interlocutory, given the legislative direction that small claims matters proceed expeditiously, see 14 M.R.S. § 7481 (2016); M.R.S.C.P. 1, we address the appeal pursuant to the judicial economy exception and remand for further proceedings.”

Thomas v. BFC Marine/Bath Fuel Co., 2004 ME 27 (Me. 2004). · cites it 3× “§ 7452 (1980), the predecessor to 14 M.R.S.A. § 7481 (2003)). *6 [¶ 7] At the time Murphy was decided, D.”

Eric Ring v. Daniel Leighton v. Clinton McGaw, 2019 ME 8 (Me. 2019). · cites it 10× “[¶9] Ring contends that the court erred in granting Leighton summary judgment because, for two reasons, the small claims judgment in Leighton's favor did not have preclusive effect in the Superior Court: (1) the Small Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. §§ 7481 - 7487 (2017), requires that…”

Midland Funding LLC v. Walton, 155 A.3d 864 (Me. 2017). “14 M.R.S. § 7481 (2016). We also note that the Rules of Evidence, upon which Walton relies to seek to exclude evidence of the sale of the debt to Midland from Barclays, do not apply in small claims actions.”

H & H Oil Co. v. Dineen, 557 A.2d 604 (Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “The Small Claims Act provides “a simple, speedy and informal court procedure for the resolution of small claims,” 14 M.R.S.A. § 7481 (Supp.1988), and promotes “ ‘the policy of expeditious and inexpensive determination of controversies within the jurisdiction of the District…”

Manon Cote v. Roger Vallee, 2019 ME 156 (Me. 2019). “” 14 M.R.S. § 7481 (2018). Because, in the Superior Court, Cote and Theriault acquiesced in and sometimes affirmatively agreed to departures from proper process in a way that has delayed and complicated this action, including the appeal, there is an insufficient basis to impose…”

Ela v. Pelletier, 495 A.2d 1225 (Me. 1985). “3 See 14 M.R.S.A. § 7481 (a small claims action in the District Court is “an alternative, not an exclusive proceeding”).”

Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Bickford, 166 A.3d 986 (Me. 2017). “” 14 M.R.S. § 7481. Small claims are defined as any claim for “debt or damage[s]” no greater than $6,000.”

Ronald White v. Real Deal Auto Sales & Serv. Ctr., LLC, 2024 ME 18 (Me. 2024). · cites it 2× “’” (quoting 14 M.R.S. § 7481 (2023))); M.R.S.C.P. 11(d)(2).”

Eric Ring v. Daniel Leighton v. Clinton McGaw, 2019 ME 8 (Me. 2019). · cites it 6× “” 14 M.R.S. § 7481. It is an alternative, not exclusive, way to resolve a “small claim,” which is a claim presently subject to a jurisdictional 7 maximum of $6,000,3 exclusive of interest and costs, that does not involve title to real estate.”

Fred Taylor v. Mark Walker, 2017 ME 218 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “Although the appeal is interlocutory, given the legislative direction that small claims matters proceed expeditiously, see 14 M.R.S. § 7481 (2016); M.R.S.C.P. 1, we address the appeal pursuant to the judicial economy exception and remand for further proceedings.”

Hughes v. Univ. of Maine, 652 A.2d 97 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “Thereafter, Hughes brought the present small claims action against the University pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 7481 (Supp.1994). 1 The University moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Hughes had not exhausted his contractual remedies.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

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.