In April 2025 David and Lori Baillargeon went to trial against their neighbor Matthew Lennon.
The Baillargeon’s claimed that Lennon damaged trees on their property by allegedly cutting branches with a chainsaw.
Both sides represented themselves at the jury trial which took place in Hampshire County Superior Court.
During the trial, according to court documents, Mrs. Baillargeon testified that she saw a man cutting trees on her property while suspended on a rope.
Moreover, the defendant, Lennon, reportedly acknowledged using a chainsaw in the past and having “cut many piles of logs on [his] property.” (See the slip opinion attached below.)
When the Baillargeon’s concluded their case Lennon (who, again, was pro se) failed to move for a directed verdict challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against him.
The matter passed to the jury which ultimately concluded Lennon damaged the Baillargeon’s trees and encroached on their land.
For the alleged tree damage, a judgment entered for $100,000.
This amount was trebled pursuant to G.L. c. 242, Sec. 7 (treble damages for willful trespass to tree).
An additional $10,000 was tacked on for the alleged encroachment.
In total, Lennon was ordered to pay the Baillargeon’s a whopping $310,000.
Unsurprisingly, Lennon appealed the verdict–this time with the assistance of counsel.
Unfortunately for him his failure to move for a directed verdict during the trial put him at a significant disadvantage on appeal.
According to the Appeals Court,
Lennon argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s special verdict findings (1) that it was he who trespassed against the trees and (2) that the trespass and other encroachments caused damages in the amounts found by the jury. Lennon acknowledges that he failed to preserve these arguments by moving for a directed verdict, but he asks us nevertheless to review his claims for “manifest injustice,” or, put differently, to determine whether “the verdict is inconsistent with substantial justice.” Having done so…we affirm the judgment. (Citations omitted.)
The Appeals Court concluded that
[the testimony at trial], taken together, constituted some evidence that it was Lennon who cut or damaged the trees on the Baillargeons’ property. There was not an “absolute dearth of evidentiary support for the jury’s verdict.” (Citations omitted.)
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.