I-IiLan' I. [innuend- Imne". f1. Howie l? LU 3 AT LIMW Di Counsel FJIUE: l. Ilnv J. Donovan Also in: New Revenge: Mark V. l- t' Massachuaeln )3 .. Jaw? August 7, 2015 Missutnl Sarah Vantakosol Robert E. Hatrli Daniel R. Mawhmnoy? attention R. O'Rourke" Cathy Skeirik Roberts Mirhael F. Sander Rosie MWiIlh-im-z Susan Furbush Clerk, Somerset County Superior Court 47 Court Street Skowhegan, Maine 04976 Re: The Town of Anson v. Claudia Viles Dear Ms. Furbush: Enclosed please find a Complaint for ?ling in the above-referenced matter. Also enclosed is the Summary Sheet and $150 ?ling fee. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours. Brendan R. O?Rourke Enclosures cc: Arnold Lucc, 'l?own of Anson Chairman of Board of Selectmen Randa Veilleux, MMA, Claim No. 215F5741 Christopher McCauley, MMA, Claim No. 215135741 -- Three Canal Plaza, Rt}. Box 4-630. Portland. ME {1:1 112-4653 - ThoInpsririlinwieroln I'Jffirrjs in Portland. Main - Portsmouth, New Hampshire [113; ADIminLrne-nr may} SII EET 'l'his sheet and the intoru'uition contained herein neither replace our supplement the ?ling and service ot?pleadiugs or other papers as required by the Maine utt,?ourl or by low. This form is required For the use ofllte Clerk attend for the purpose ol'iuiliating or updating the civil dueltel sheet and attaching the appropriate party to the appropriate count or counts, Rt?i?v?lltifil?i) 1. Court of Filing a District Court Jurisdiction: Somerset County Superior Court ll. Conversion, Fraud (7:1 USE the primary civil statutes under which you are ?ling. ifany}. Pm .rc ptainlilt's: lFunsnre, leave blank. ltl. NATURE OF FILING Initial t?olnplaint '1?hirtI?I"arty Complaint Cross-Claim or Counterclaim It' Reinstated or Reopened ease, give original Docket Number: [If tiling a second or subsequent Money Judgment Diselosnl?e, give docket number at first disc-lesure) IV. TITLE TD REAL ESTATE IS INVOLVED V. MOST NATURE OF ACTION gPlaee an in one box only) Pro se plaintiffs: lt'unsure. leave blank. CHILD PROTECTIVE CUSTODY GENERAL CIVIL Personal Injury 'l?ort Contract Property Negligence El Contract Other Lihels Auto Negligence DeclaratorylEquitable Relief Land Use Enforcement (30K) Medic-at Malpractice General tnjunctive ?l?esling Product Liability Declaratory Judgment El Arbitration Awards Other Equitable Relief Appointment of Receiver i:i Screening lConstitutionaltCivil Rights El Shoreholders? Derivative Actions Domestic Torts ConstitutionaliCivil Rights El Foreign Deposition Other Personal Injury Tort Statutory Actions Pie-action Discovery Non-Personal Injury Tort Unfair Trade Practices Common Law ilabeas Corpus El Libel?Jet?ttinatiori rte-adorn oFAccess Prisoner ?t?ransf?ers Auto Negligence El Other Statutory Actions El Foreign Judgments lOther Negligence Miscellaneous Civil Minor Settlements Other Non-Personal Injury Tart El Drug Fort?eitures El Other ICivil El Protective Custody Money Judgments SPECIAL ACTIONS Money Judgment Request Disclosure Title Actions Quiet Title Eminent Domain Easements Boundaries DEED REAL ESTATE tREt Foreclosure El Foreclosure for exempt.) Foreclosure Other Trespass Trespass El Misc. Real Estate Equitable Remedies Mechanics Liens Partition CI Adverse Possession Nuisance Abandoned Roads Other Real Estate I: Body APPEALS (AP) [To be ?led i_n Superior Court] El Administrative Agency (30C) Other Appeals VI. transaction). Lilli [name old neutral) on The parties have participated in a format ADR process with lot} Alternative Dispute Resolution I certify that pursuant to ltitB?Mb], this case is exempt from a required ADR process because: [1 falls within an exemption listed above an appeal or an action for non-payment ofa note in a secured The plaintit't'or defendant is incarcerated in a local. state or federal facility the parties have participated in a statutory preiitigation screen process with (date). (date). an exemption from ADR. [name ofneutral) This is a personal injury action in which the plaintiff?s likely damages will not exceed $30,000, and the plaintiff VII. PLAINTIFFS {Name it Address ineluding county) or Cl l:l Counterelaim or Cross?Claim l'laintil'l's The plilintifl?is a prisoner in a local, state or federal Facility. 'l?own ot'r?inson, lit}. Box 297', Anson. Maine [141)] I, County ot'Smnersel Altm'neys (Name, Bar nintther~ Firm name. Address, 'J?elephone number} il'nll counsel listed do represent all plaintill?m specify (li?pm plaintiff. leave blank} who Ihc listed attorneym represent Marl: V. Franco, Bar Brendan It. Bar it SETS Thompson .52 Bowie. There Canal Plaza, Portland, Maine. the? [2-4630 DEFENDANTS {Name Address including county) undi'or 'I"hird-Party, Counterelaini or Cl'oesr?laiin Defendants The det'endunt ie a prisoner in a loual. state or federal Facility Claudia Viiea 65 Elm Street. Nonh Anson, Maine [)4958 (In) Attorneys (Name, Bar number. Firm name, Address, 'I?elephone Number) lfali counsel listed do NOT represent all defendants. Specify (If known) who the listed attorney rcpresenL Walter Meliee? Bea, Bar it 7848 - McKee Billings, PA. 133 State Street Augusta, Maine D4330 207-620-8294 IX. RELATED IF ANY Search Warrant - Motion to Return Pronertv Judge?ustiee Docket Date: August T, 2015 Mark V. Franco, Esq. Bar No. 11967 Name of Lead Attorney?eeord or Pro se Party Signatnfe of Attorney or Pro se Party STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR SOMERSITIZ SS CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. THE OF ANSON, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT v. CLAUDIA G. VILES, Defendant. NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Town of Anson= by and through their undersigned counsel. Thompson Bowie, LLP, and complains against Defendant Claudia G. Viles as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Town of Anson is a municipality in the County of Somerset, State of Maine. 3. Defendant Claudia G. Viles was at all times relevant to this Complaint an elected of?cial of the ?Iowa of Anson and is a resident of the Town of North Anson. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction this matter pursuant to the provisions of 4 4. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to the provisions of I4 M.R.S 501. FACTS 5. At all relevant times hereto, Claudia G. Vilcs (hereinafter ?Defendant?? has served as the Town of Anson's {hereinafter the tax eolleetor, a position that she has been seated in for the last Forty-two years and received compensation for. As the 'l?own?s tax collector, the DeIEndant?sjob .responsibilities included, among other things, collecting taxes For the 'l?own. preparing regular reports at" collected monies, maintaining tax records and ledgers for tax-related accounts, and performing other clerical and bookkeepingI work on behalfol? the 'l?own. 7. Among other taxes collected by Defendant were the Town?s excise taxes. which were collected annually li'om Anson residents at the time they registered their motor vehicles. UNCOVERING THE MISUSE OF TOWN FUNDS 8. In 2014, 'I?riss Smith was hired by the Town as an administrative assistant in the town of?ce. 9. After Ms. Triss?s arrival and sometime in or around September 2014, the '['own began using a new computer system for processing transactions by the Town?a system which automatically directs transactions conducted by the Town, including its processing of its excise taxes, into the appropriate accounts. 10. On or about that time, the Town also implemented a new policy requiring town of?ce employees to perform daily deposits of funds collected by the Town. 1. Prior to that time it was customary for town employees, including Defendant, to deposit monies collected by the Town irregularly, and in certain instances. as infrequently as on a {piarterly-basis. 12. Together, these changes provided the Town with a more reliable and comprehensive method for processing and tracking its ?nancial transactions. including accounting for payments received from its residents related to their annual taxes. At the end of the 2014 calendar year, Ms. Smith conducted a summary report of the 'l"own?s excise ax receipts based on the data provided to her by the Defendant. 14-. In relation to that report, [?Jeljiendant inl'hrmed Ms. Smith that she collected $354,355 in excise taxes during the 2tll4 calendar year. 15. Despite her representation as to the amount collected, the report showed that Defendant had only recorded and/?or deposited $275,710 in excise taxes that year, which in effect, resulted in shortfall. 16. Due to this discrepancy, Defendant met with Ms. Smith and the Town?s Chairman of the Board of Selectmen. Arnold Luce, to discuss the discrepancy in numbers and possible causes for the shortfall. 17'. Following that meeting, the Town decided to retain outside auditors to assess the Town?s tax records, and if possible, to determine the basis of the shortfall. 18. As part of that audit, Richard Emerson, an accountant from the Portland-based accounting firm l?urdy Powers 61: Company, met with Chairman Luce and Defendant in the early part of 2015. 10. During that meeting, Emerson discovered certain irregularities with Defendant?s accounting and recording methods, and confronted her about these issues. 20. Emerson also questioned Defendant about her adding tapes, and why the tapes did not amount to what had been reported. 2 i. Defendant informed Emerson that they were not reviewing the original tapes. and that she had reprinted the adding tapes to tr},r to make the accounting numbers work. 22. At one point during the meeting, Defendant admitted that there were errors with her accounting andt'or recording methods, and took responsibility for such as the tax collector. 23. When the between what had been collected and what had been deposited reached in excess of $50,001}, the meetng was ended and it was suggested to Defendant that she consult an attorney. 24. On or before the day of the meeting, the Town learned that Defendant had removed a portion ofthe its tax records from the town of?ce. 25. Despite a request from the Town to have those files returned, Defendant did not return all ofthe tiles. 26. On April 15, 2015, Maine State Trooper Christopher Crawford applied for and was granted a search warrant for Defendant?s home. 27. On April 16, 2015, Trooper Crawford searched Defendant?s home, and seized, among other items, $58,500 in cash. 28. After confirming the 2014 shortfall, Town of?cials requested Emerson and his firm to conduct a more extensive review of the Town?s tax records for the previous years. '39. On June 9, 2015, and July 22, 2015, Emerson provided summaries to the 'l?own of his analysis of the excise taxes processed by Defendant for the years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. 30. His analysis revealed that in 2.011 there was a shortfall of $1 10,?56 between the amount of excise tax ?collected [and] processed by [Defendant]? and the amount that was actually ?deposited and recorded.? 31. Similarly in 2012, there was a shortfall 013125356: in But}. there was a shorttall of $1 12,491; and in 2014, prior to the implementation of the new software program in September of that year. there was a shortfall of $90,100. 33. In total, according to Patterson?s review. from 201 to September 3014, there was a ?shortfall hetween the amount of excise tax collected through registrations processed and the amount of excise [as deposited to the 'l"own?s checking account totaling $438.7i2." 33. Each yearly audit of tax records costs the Town several thousand dollars. 34. Once it. was determined that the accumulated shortfalls would exceed the Town?s insurance coverage for this type ofloss. the audit was stopped. 35. At this time, the Town is uncertain as to whether additional yearly audits will reveal similar shortfalls for the calendar years preceding and including 2010, and upon information and belief, the investigation is ongoing. COUNT I: CONVERSION 36. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 35 as if fully set forth herein. The Plaintiff has. and has always had, a property interest in the excise taxes due and payable to the Town. 38. When the Defendant intentionally and knowingly misappropriated these funds intended for the Town for her own personal use, the Plaintiff had a right to possession of these funds 39. When the Defendant intentionally and knowingly toolt the funds paid by the Town?s residents for the purposes of paying their excise taxes, site did so unlawfully. dishonestly. and maliciously. The Defendant?s intentional and knowing actions. as aloretnentioned, constitute conversion. Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant on Count I of the Complaint together with interest, costs and attorney fees, and for such other and further damages which this Court dcemsjust and appropriate. COUNT ll: FRAUD 41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 40 as if fully set forth herein. 42. The Defendant intentionally and knowingly made false representations to the Plaintiff when she omitted amounts she collected in excise taxes from the Town?s ledger and accounting system. 43. The Defendant intentionally and knowingly made false representations to the Plaintiff when she inaccurater recorded amounts she collected in excise taxes in the Town?s ledger and accounting system. 44. The Defendant intentionally and knowingly made false representations to the Plaintiff when she reprinted calculator tapes with altered figures in order to make it appear that the amount ofexcise taxes that had been collected and deposited were consistent. 45. The Defendant made these representations with the knowledge that they were false. 46. The facts surrounding the amount of excise taxes collected by Defendant that were due and payable to the ?l'own and the amount of excise taxes that were actually recorded and deposited. are material facts. 47. The Defendant had knowledge of the factual inaccuracies between what she had collected from the 'I?own?s residents for excise taxes and what she subsequently recorded and deposited, as well as knowledge of the circumstances and actions which led to the inaccuracies. 48. The Defendant intentionaily sought to conceal the omissions and/or inaccuracies From the 'l?own by recreating calculator tapes to malte it appear that the amounts that had been collected and deposited were consistent with one another. 49. The Plaintifl?justi?ably relied on the Defendant?s representations in. among other circumstances. formulating its budget, setting tax rates. assessing its financial condition. and in doing so, it accepted the records prepared by Defendant as substantiation of the administration ol.? her duties as the 'l'own?s tax collector, and by doing so were damaged. 50. The Defendant?s intentional and knowing actions. as athrementioned. constitute fraud. WHEREFORE. Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant on Count II of the Complaint together with interest, costs and attorney fees. and for such other and further damages which this Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT Ill: CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations set Forth in paragraphs 1 50 as if full}r set forth herein. 52. As a result of the Defendant's intentional. fraudulent. and dishonest actions complained of in Counts I and II. the Plaintiff engaged in an extensive investigation and audit of Plaintiff?s ?nancial records and accounts. 53. The investigation and audit required that the Plaintiff hire an outside accounting ?rm to determine how and by whom fraud and conversion were being committed. 54. 'l?hcse actions resulted in considerable expense to the l?laintil?t? in an amount cspected to exceed several thousand dollars. 55. In addition to the expenses associated with the hiring, of an outside accounting firm. the Town has had to conduct. its own internal investigation to determine the extent of the Defendant?s actions, which has resulted in considerable labor costs to the Plaintiff. 56. But for the Defendant?s actions, the time required ofthc Plaintiff?s employees to attend to its loss would have been spent on other town business and as a result damaged the Plaintiff. The consequential damages were a foreseeable result of Defendant?s actions. WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant on Count Ill of the Complaint together with interest, costs and attorney fees. and for such other and further damages which this Court deemsjust and appropriate. COUNT IV: PUNITIVE DAMAGES 58. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 57 as if fully set forth herein. 59. Defendant acted intentionally and with ill will when she converted the Plaintiff?s property for her own personal use and fraudulently concealed her actions from the Plaintiff despite being questioned about discrepancies in the Town?s accounts. 60. Defendant?s acts of conversion and fraud were committed with malice. 61. Defendant?s conversion of the Town?s accounts and concealment of her knowledge with respect to the discrepancies in the Town?s accounts were deliberate. 62. 'l?hese deliberate acts. coupled with Defendant?s ?duciary responsibility to the Plaintiff, warrants that malice may be implied as to the Delbndanfs acts. Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant on Count IV of the Complaint together with interest. costs and attorney fees. and for such other and further damages which this Court deems just and aplziropriate. Dated at Portland, Maine, this 7th day of August, 2015. /7 i/ inawc/ Marl-t Franco, Esq, Bar No. 2967 Brendan R. O?Rourke, Esq, Bar No. Attorneys for Plaintiff Town of Anson THOMPSON BOWIE, Tluee Canal Plaza Post O?iee Box 4630 Portland, Maine 04112 (207) 774?2500 BOW Counsel lw.nIiHr.n rr1 Flizahetli liner f. Ldll'iFJW Hlfi'v in Illuruptalcr II lasvni P. Donovan Rebates Also Admitted In: New Hampshire Mark Vll'?rit?? August 7? 5 - Maserallusnlt: Dale Barr-ill {Saver Miami? Robert ti. Hatch Dar?nel it. Mawhinnev Brendan so? Cathy Slcairik Roberts Michael E. Gautier Rosie M. Williams Somerset County Sheriff?s Of?ce 131 East Madison Road Madison, Maine 04950 RE: Service of Process: Claudia G. Viles Dear Sheriff: Enclosed please ?nd an original and one copy of a Summons for the above-referenced defendant, and a copy of the Complaint ?led in this matter. Please have the defendant served with the Summons and Complaint at the following address: Claudia G. Viles 65 Elm Street North Anson, ME 04958 Please forward the Return of Service to my attention so that I may ?le it with the Court. Your bill for services will be given prompt attention. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, If. Brendan R. C?Rourke Enclosures cc: Arnold Luce, Town ol?Anson Chairman of Board of Selectmen Randa Veilleux: MMA, Claim No. Christopher McCauley, MMA, Claim No. 215F574l l: i3" 201N43591 - Three Carrel =1-r3'iil. ME #141 "l-Ii'il'l Whit-W. in - l?m?tr-nnmitll. I?lr'w only} STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT COURT somerset ss. Location Docket No. Docket No. Town of Anson Plaintiff v. SUMNIONS Claudia . V1133 Defendant 65 Elm Street North Anson, ME 04958 Address The Plaintiff has begun a lawsuit against. you in the (SEEM (Superior) Court, which holds sessions at (street address) 41 court Strait in the Towng?iw of SkOWhegan . County of somerset Maine. If you wish to oppose this lawsuit, you or your attorney MUST PREPARE AND SERVE A WRITTEN ANSWER to the attached Complaint WITHIN 20 DAYS from the day this Summons was served upon you. You or your attorney must serve your Answer, by delivering a copy of it in person or by mail to the Plaintiff?s attorney, or the Plaintiff, whose name and address appear below. You or your attorney must also file the original of your Answer with the court by mailing it to the following address: Clerk of (District!) (Superior) Court, 47 Court Street 1 Skowhegan Maine 04976 (Mailing Adthess?} (Town, City] {Zip} before, or within a reasonable time after, it is served. INIPQRTANT WARNING IF YOU FAIL TO SERVE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU ANSWER, YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS. YOUR EMPLOYER MAY BE ORDERED TO PAY PART OF YOUR WAGES TO THE PLAINTIFF OR YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNTS AND YOUR REAL ESTATE MAY BE TAKEN TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS LAWSUIT, DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME. If you believe the plaintiff is not entitled to all or part of the claim set forth in the Complaint or if you believe you have a claim of your own against the Plaintiff, you should talk to a lawyer. If you feel you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, you may ask the clerk of court for information as to places where you may seek legal assistance. (Seal of Con rt [1 Date: August 6, 2015 Mark V. Franco, Esq. (Attorney for) Plaintiff E: Address Three Canal Plaza. Portland, ME 04112 207 774?2snn Rev.