Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A condominium unit was owned by Diane Marchetti, who did not reside in the unit but allowed her daughter, Caroline Thibeault, and Thibeault’s son to occupy it. The condominium’s association initiated a foreclosure action against Marchetti alleging she was in default for failing to pay assessments, fines, and fees—some of which related to Thibeault’s alleged commercial use of the unit. Thibeault’s son has a disability, and both Thibeault and Marchetti asserted that the association had failed to provide reasonable accommodation under federal and state disability laws.After the foreclosure action commenced in the Sagadahoc County Superior Court, Marchetti filed an answer and raised several defenses, including alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Maine Human Rights Act. Thibeault, who was not a party to the action, then moved to intervene, claiming both a direct interest in the property and statutory civil rights at stake. She sought intervention as of right or, alternatively, permissive intervention, arguing her interests were not adequately represented and that her defenses raised common questions of law and fact with the main action. The Superior Court denied her motion to intervene on both grounds, finding her interest insufficient and noting that her mother’s defenses already encompassed her concerns.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the order denying intervention. The court held that Thibeault did not satisfy the criteria for intervention as of right under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) because she lacked a direct, legally protectable interest in the foreclosure action, her ability to protect her interests would not be impaired by denial, and her interests were adequately represented by Marchetti. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) because Thibeault’s participation would be duplicative and cause undue delay. The order denying intervention was affirmed. View "Oak Hill Condominiums v. Marchetti" on Justia Law

Fifth Generation, Inc., a Texas-based liquor manufacturer and subchapter S corporation known for producing Tito’s Vodka, supplied increasing quantities of vodka to Maine between 2011 and 2017 without filing Maine pass-through-entity withholding or income tax returns. The company did not own real estate or hold itself out as doing business in Maine but shipped its products to a Maine state-operated bailment warehouse, as required by state law. Fifth Generation retained title to the goods in the warehouse until they were sold to the Maine Bureau of Alcoholic Beverage and Lottery Operations, and its out-of-state employees and broker occasionally accessed the warehouse.Maine Revenue Services conducted an audit and assessed over $748,000 in withholding, interest, and penalties against Fifth Generation. The company appealed to the Maine Board of Tax Appeals, which found no income tax nexus and canceled the assessment. The State Tax Assessor then sought de novo review in the Maine Superior Court (Kennebec County), which granted summary judgment for the Assessor, reinstating the assessment. Fifth Generation subsequently appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that Fifth Generation was not exempt from state income tax during the audit period. The Court found that, under Maine law, Fifth Generation had a sufficient nexus with Maine because it owned tangible property in the state and sold it there. The Court also concluded that neither federal law (15 U.S.C. § 381(a)), the Commerce Clause, nor any constitutional provision barred the tax, as Maine’s regulatory scheme served a legitimate state purpose and was applied equally to in-state and out-of-state businesses. The Court further held that Fifth Generation did not have “substantial authority” to justify waiving penalties. The Superior Court’s judgment was affirmed. View "State Tax Assessor v. Fifth Generation, Inc." on Justia Law

Throughout the spring and summer of 2023, the defendant operated a large-scale drug trafficking operation from a residence he shared with three others. He communicated regularly with customers and directed his housemates to assist in drug transactions. Law enforcement, with the help of a confidential informant, orchestrated controlled purchases on three occasions. Each time, the informant arranged the purchase with the defendant by phone but acquired the drugs from someone else at the residence. The State later filed charges including multiple counts of aggravated drug trafficking and violating a condition of release.The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Waldo County Unified Criminal Docket. Before trial, the defendant stipulated to his prior felony drug trafficking convictions and pleaded guilty to violating a condition of release. The jury was instructed on both principal and accomplice liability, over the defense’s objection, and received both oral and written instructions. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant on two counts of aggravated drug trafficking—one for a specific date and one for a period covering several months—but acquitted him on one count and deadlocked on two others. The trial court merged the trafficking counts for sentencing, found ongoing criminal conduct, and imposed a thirty-year sentence.On appeal, the defendant argued to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court that the trial court erred in its instructions on accomplice liability and in the determination of his basic sentence. The Court held that, while the instructions included minor imperfections, when viewed as a whole they correctly and fairly informed the jury of the law. It also found the trial court’s sentencing analysis to be lawful and appropriate, as it was based on the nature and seriousness of the ongoing offense for which the defendant was convicted. The judgment of conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "State of Maine v. James" on Justia Law

A mother, Cassie S., was subject to a child protection proceeding after concerns were raised about her medical decision-making for her child, who had a complex medical history. Despite multiple recommendations from medical providers to remove the child’s tracheostomy and gastrostomy tube, the mother insisted on maintaining these interventions and sought further procedures. After a New York hospital visit revealed no medical basis for these interventions and the mother refused to allow further evaluation, the hospital reported suspected medical abuse to Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, which then petitioned for a child protection order.The District Court in Portland initially struggled to serve the mother and obtain necessary medical records, in part because of the mother’s resistance. The court denied her request for appointed counsel after finding she was not indigent, but she eventually retained private counsel for the hearing. The court granted a continuance of the jeopardy hearing beyond the statutory 120-day deadline due to delays attributed to the mother and the complexity of the case. Following a hearing, the court found the child was in jeopardy, placed the child in the Department’s custody, and required steps toward demedicalization and psychological evaluation for the mother. The court also issued a broad order restricting the mother from discussing the case publicly. The mother’s motion for relief from judgment based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was denied without a hearing.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the finding of jeopardy and the denial of the mother’s Rule 60(b) motion, holding that she was not entitled to appointed counsel, the continuance was justified for good cause, there was no error requiring recusal, and any negative inference regarding missing witnesses was harmless. The Court vacated the speech restriction order as overly broad and remanded for it to be narrowed and time-limited. View "In re Child of Cassie S." on Justia Law

A man was arrested in November 2022 after a Burger King manager reported to 9-1-1 that he saw the man with an open alcoholic beverage container in his vehicle and believed he had been drinking and driving. Police responded, blocked the man's vehicle from leaving the parking lot, and saw an open can of alcohol. Both the man and his passenger provided false names, and the driver ultimately admitted his real identity after being informed he was under arrest. A search incident to arrest yielded methamphetamine, fentanyl, drug paraphernalia, and cash on his person and in his vehicle.The Penobscot County Unified Criminal Docket initially granted the defendant's motion to suppress, concluding the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion because the vehicle was not on a public way. The State moved for further findings and reconsideration, arguing that the parking lot was only accessible from a public way and that the officers reasonably believed a violation had occurred or was imminent. Upon reconsideration, the court added findings about the lot's access, denied the motion to suppress, and concluded the stop and subsequent searches were lawful. The court also denied suppression based on Miranda grounds and found the cash subject to forfeiture as drug proceeds or intended for drug trafficking.Reviewing the case, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. The court held that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in reconsidering its suppression ruling. It found that the stop was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion, the searches and seizure of evidence were lawful, and the forfeiture of the cash was supported by sufficient evidence and did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The judgment was affirmed. View "State of Maine v. Martin" on Justia Law

Sean Eori was charged with multiple offenses, including unlawful sexual contact and possession of sexually explicit material, based on allegations that, between 2019 and 2022, he engaged in inappropriate conduct with a minor who was between twelve and fifteen years old. The minor was the child of Eori’s friend, and their relationship involved frequent communication and meetings. The evidence at trial included text and Instagram messages, physical gifts, and photographs, some of which depicted the minor nude or partially clothed, and some of which the minor sent to Eori at his request.After his arrest and indictment, Eori challenged several pretrial rulings in the Kennebec County Unified Criminal Docket. The court granted the State’s motion for a protective order, limiting Eori’s access to a Child Advocacy Center interview with the victim, so that he could only review it under his counsel’s supervision. The court also denied Eori’s motion in limine to exclude certain photographs, reasoning that whether the images were sexually explicit was a question for the jury. At trial, the court overruled Eori’s objections to the admission of these photographs, and after the State’s case, denied his motion for judgment of acquittal. Ultimately, the jury convicted Eori of unlawful sexual contact and two counts of possession of sexually explicit material, and he was sentenced to 180 days in jail.The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reviewed the conviction. It held that the protective order was appropriate under state law, which mandates confidentiality for such interviews. The court found no error in admitting the photographs, concluding they were relevant and their probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice. The court further held that, under a totality of the circumstances approach, the jury could reasonably find the images met the statutory definition of “sexually explicit material.” The conviction was affirmed. View "State of Maine v. Eori" on Justia Law

A police officer in Lincoln, Maine, observed a vehicle that appeared to be speeding and conducted a traffic stop. The driver, Kenneth Rhoades, was uncooperative and displayed signs of impairment, including slurred speech and the odor of alcohol. During the encounter, Rhoades initially denied drinking but eventually admitted to consuming two alcoholic beverages. After Rhoades behaved aggressively toward the officer, he was transported to the police station, where he ultimately submitted to a breath test that showed a blood alcohol concentration of .16 grams per 210 liters of breath.Following the incident, the State charged Rhoades with operating under the influence with two prior OUI offenses within ten years. Rhoades filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the stop. The trial court (A. Murray, J.) denied the motion. Before trial, Rhoades also sought discovery sanctions due to the State’s delayed disclosure of impeachment information regarding a potential witness. The trial court (Roberts, J.) declined to impose sanctions after finding no prejudice to Rhoades, as the witness in question did not testify at trial. At trial, Rhoades objected to the admission of his breath test results, arguing insufficient foundational reliability and a Confrontation Clause violation. The trial court admitted the results.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The court held that the officer’s visual estimation of Rhoades’s speed, given the officer’s training and experience, provided reasonable articulable suspicion for the stop. The court also held that the breath test results were properly admitted, as the State established their reliability through expert testimony, and the admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause since the breath test was machine-generated data. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying discovery sanctions due to a lack of prejudice. View "State of Maine v. Rhoades" on Justia Law

Two applicants submitted materials to operate medical cannabis cultivation facilities in a Maine town in August 2024. Their initial applications did not include necessary documentation showing that their facilities would be located in a “Registered Cannabis Property,” which was required by the town’s licensing ordinance. Town staff reviewed the applications and placed them on the council agenda for a “first reading,” a step not required by ordinance but adopted by custom. On September 4, 2024, before the first reading of the applications, the Town Council amended the zoning ordinance to add a 1,000-foot setback requirement between cannabis facilities and residential properties—a standard the applicants’ locations could not meet. After the amendment, staff told the council the applications were “complete,” and the first reading occurred. The public hearing and further review were scheduled, and the required property registration was later filed. The council ultimately denied the applications for failing to meet the new setback requirement.The applicants sought judicial review in the Cumberland County Superior Court under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80B. The Superior Court affirmed the Town Council’s decision, concluding that the applications were not “pending” at the time of the ordinance amendment and thus were subject to the new setback requirement.On further appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether the applications were “pending” within the meaning of 1 M.R.S. § 302 at the time the ordinance was amended. The court held that an application is not “pending” until the reviewing authority has conducted a substantive review of whether it meets the approval criteria. Because the Town Council had not begun substantive review before the zoning amendment was enacted, the applications were not pending and were properly denied under the amended ordinance. The judgment was affirmed. View "Shark Tank Strategies, LLC v. Town of Scarborough" on Justia Law

H.A.T., LLC entered into a bond-for-deed contract with Greenleaf Apartments, LLC to purchase three buildings in Portland for $1 million, with a down payment and monthly installments. H.A.T. took possession but would not receive title until the note was fully paid, and the parties executed additional agreements to address Greenleaf's concerns and clarify remedies for default. Over time, H.A.T. became delinquent in its payments, and Greenleaf lent additional funds to cover repairs after a series of casualty events. Despite proposals to consolidate debts and efforts to sell the property, H.A.T. remained in default. Greenleaf ultimately exercised its right under a memorandum agreement to terminate the contract without notice upon default, retaking possession of the property.H.A.T. then filed suit in the Maine Business and Consumer Docket, alleging various claims, including breach of contract and entitlement to insurance proceeds, while Greenleaf counterclaimed for breach of contract. The court dismissed claims against Greenleaf's counsel and, after a bench trial, ruled in favor of Greenleaf on all claims. The court found that H.A.T. had defaulted on payment obligations, that Greenleaf was justified in terminating the contract, and that H.A.T. was not entitled to insurance proceeds or a setoff. The final judgment awarded Greenleaf costs and attorney fees.On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment. The Court held that H.A.T. breached the contract by missing payments, Greenleaf had no obligation to provide H.A.T. with insurance proceeds, and H.A.T. was not entitled to notice of a right to cure because the statutory notice provision for foreclosures did not apply to commercial purchasers like H.A.T. The court concluded the statute was intended to protect homeowners, not commercial investors. Judgment was affirmed. View "H.A.T., LLC v. Greenleaf Apartmetns, LLC" on Justia Law

A mother’s parental rights were terminated after her child was born drug-affected, prompting the Department of Health and Human Services to seek a child protection order. The mother, struggling with opioid use disorder, spent significant periods in jail and various treatment facilities. Despite participating in an Adult Treatment and Recovery Court program, she experienced multiple relapses and did not complete her treatment programs. At the time of the termination hearing, she remained in treatment with no clear plan for when she could care for her child.The District Court (Springvale) conducted a hearing on the Department’s petition to terminate parental rights. The court received evidence that the mother had a long-standing substance use disorder and inconsistent participation in treatment. The guardian ad litem (GAL) assigned to the case did not meet several statutory obligations, including meeting the mother in person, observing visits, attending family meetings, and filing timely reports. Nevertheless, the court found the mother unfit based on statutory criteria and concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. The mother appealed, arguing that the court misunderstood addiction and that deficiencies in the GAL’s performance undermined the best interest determination.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case for clear error and abuse of discretion. The court held that the evidence supported a finding of parental unfitness under at least one statutory ground, and deficiencies in the GAL’s performance did not prevent the trial court from independently determining the child’s best interest. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision not to explicitly consider a permanency guardianship. Accordingly, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights. View "In re Child of Danielle H." on Justia Law