Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

John Veneziano obtained a $3,500,000 money judgment against Bernard J. Saulnier in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine. Veneziano then sought to enforce this judgment in Maine state court by filing a disclosure subpoena and related documents in the District Court in Biddeford. The case was later transferred to the Business and Consumer Docket. After discovery disputes and a disclosure hearing, the Business and Consumer Docket found that Saulnier’s actual earnings allowed for weekly installment payments of $1,009 and ordered Saulnier to make those payments to satisfy the judgment.Following this order, Saulnier appealed, initially contesting the imputation of income above his reported earnings. During the appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court raised the issue of whether the federal judgment had been domesticated in Maine, as required by statute. The parties provided supplemental briefing on the issue. It was undisputed that the federal judgment had not been domesticated in Maine state court pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the Business and Consumer Docket lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce an undomesticated federal judgment. The court concluded that Maine’s disclosure statute authorizes enforcement only of judgments entered in Maine state courts, and that a foreign or federal judgment must first be domesticated in Maine before it may be enforced through disclosure proceedings. Because domestication had not occurred, the Business and Consumer Docket had no authority to act, and its order was vacated. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. View "Veneziano v. Saulnier" on Justia Law

The Maine Human Rights Commission filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court alleging that a landlord discriminated against his tenant based on sex, asserting claims under both the Maine Human Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. After litigation began, the tenant requested a judicial settlement conference. The landlord did not attend the conference, but his attorney and daughter attended, allegedly with his authority to settle. After the conference, a record form stated that the parties had agreed to a full and final settlement, but disagreements arose during subsequent exchanges of draft settlement agreements, particularly over provisions related to an acknowledgment of antidiscrimination laws and certain “public-relief terms” such as fair-housing training and property management oversight.The Kennebec County Superior Court reviewed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the court found that the parties intended to be bound by an agreement reached at the settlement conference, as reflected in the settlement conference record form. The court identified five basic terms as the substance of the agreement, including a payment to the tenant and specific non-monetary provisions. The court ordered the parties to execute an agreement consistent with these terms, except for the acknowledgment provision, which it found was not part of the agreement.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found that the record was insufficient to support the Superior Court’s finding that the parties mutually assented to all material terms of a binding settlement agreement. The Supreme Judicial Court held that, in the absence of an evidentiary hearing or a sufficiently detailed record, the lower court erred in enforcing the settlement. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the parties actually reached a binding agreement and, if so, its precise terms. View "Maine Human Rights Commission v. Larkin" on Justia Law

The appellant owned a condominium unit in Old Orchard Beach, Maine, subject to the Tidewater Loft Condominium Association’s declaration, which required payment of fees and assessments. After accruing tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid dues, expenses, and legal fees, she received notice of her right to cure the default, but did not do so. The Association initiated foreclosure proceedings. In response, the appellant filed a counterclaim, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, based on the Association’s alleged failure to accommodate her daughter’s disability in connection with snow removal and trash disposal.The Biddeford District Court held a bench trial, at which the appellant appeared pro se. Although pretrial proceedings had identified her counterclaim as an issue for trial, the court ultimately limited the trial to the foreclosure issues and expressly excluded the counterclaim, preventing the appellant from presenting evidence or cross-examining on matters related to her claim. The court then entered judgment of foreclosure and sale for the Association and also entered judgment against the appellant on her counterclaim, concluding she had presented no persuasive evidence, despite not allowing her to do so.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the procedural due process claim de novo. The court held that the trial court’s failure to permit the appellant to present evidence or be heard on her counterclaim constituted a violation of her procedural due process rights. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated both the foreclosure judgment and the judgment on the counterclaim, remanding for further proceedings to allow the appellant an opportunity to be heard on her counterclaim. View "Tidewater Loft Condominium Association v. Moskal-Kanz" on Justia Law

Carissa Daniels filed a complaint in August 2023 alleging that Patrick R. O’Brien committed timber trespass on her property by cutting trees and bushes. O’Brien’s homeowner’s insurer, MMG Insurance Co., initially defended him under a reservation of rights but later withdrew that reservation and settled the claim with Daniels. Daniels then moved to dismiss her complaint with prejudice as part of the settlement. O’Brien objected to both the settlement and the dismissal, arguing he should have the opportunity to defend against Daniels’s claim and thereby preserve a potential wrongful use of civil process claim against her.The Superior Court (Oxford County) held a hearing on the motions. During the hearing, MMG moved to intervene to support Daniels’s dismissal, while O’Brien moved to keep the matter on the court’s docket. The court granted Daniels’s motion to dismiss with prejudice in February 2025 and denied O’Brien’s motion for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. O’Brien then appealed, raising procedural objections and challenging MMG’s authority to settle over his objection.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion by the Superior Court in granting the dismissal with prejudice. The Court explained that under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), whether to allow a voluntary dismissal is within the trial court’s discretion and does not require a hearing unless evidence is taken. The Court further held that there was no procedural error, and that the merits of the settlement and MMG’s authority to settle were not at issue in this proceeding. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. The main holding is that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, even over a defendant’s objection based on potential future claims. View "Daniels v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

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

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

Eight residents of Boothbay and Boothbay Harbor challenged a school board’s refusal to put their petition for a new referendum before the voters. The underlying issue concerned a voter-approved bond to renovate local schools. After the bond passed, the residents submitted a petition containing two articles: one seeking to reconsider and repeal the prior vote, and another proposing a new, smaller bond for a different renovation project if the repeal succeeded. The school board rejected the petition, reasoning that it did not present a proper reconsideration question as required by statute and that the second article was unrelated to reconsidering the original referendum.The residents sought judicial review in the Lincoln County Superior Court under Rule 80B and also filed independent claims for a declaratory judgment and attorney fees, alleging a First Amendment violation. The Superior Court found that the petition was not a proper reconsideration petition because it included an additional article and that the independent claims were barred by the exclusivity principle. The residents then appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It held that the statute governing reconsideration petitions imposes a ministerial duty on the board to initiate a referendum if the statutory requirements are met; thus, the Superior Court had jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the residents’ petition did not comply with the statutory requirements for a reconsideration petition, as it sought affirmative repeal and included a second, unrelated article, making it ineligible for submission to voters. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the independent claims, holding there was no First Amendment violation. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Minerich v. Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Community School District" on Justia Law

Zakaria Allaf and Stephanie Crosby rented an apartment from Robb Crawford and later from Shoreline Holdings Five, LLC, with the lease requiring a $1,795 security deposit. The tenants experienced a persistent cockroach infestation and, after unsuccessful remediation attempts, agreed with Crawford to terminate the lease early in January 2022. Upon moving out, Allaf and Crosby were assured by Crawford’s agent that the security deposit would be addressed within thirty days, but no response was received. Eventually, Crawford’s attorney informed Crosby that the deposit was being withheld because Crawford did not consider the lease terminated.Allaf and Crosby filed a small claims action in the Maine District Court (Portland), alleging wrongful retention of the security deposit and breach of the implied warranty of habitability. After a trial, the District Court found in their favor, awarding $6,000 in damages (including double damages for the security deposit and damages for breach of habitability), plus attorney fees and costs. Shoreline appealed to the Cumberland County Superior Court, which affirmed the judgment. Shoreline then appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting liability for wrongful retention and arguing that attorney fees should not be awarded in addition to the $6,000 statutory monetary limit for small claims actions.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment. It held that sufficient evidence supported the lower court’s finding that the lease had been terminated by agreement and that Shoreline failed to return the security deposit or provide a written explanation. The Court also held that attorney fees awarded under a fee-shifting statute such as 14 M.R.S. § 6034(2) are considered “costs” and are not included within the $6,000 small claims cap set by 14 M.R.S. § 7482. Thus, the award of attorney fees in addition to $6,000 in damages was proper. Judgment was affirmed. View "Allaf v. Shoreline Holdings Five, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the Jewetts obtained a mortgage loan in 1999, which was later assigned to U.S. Bank. The Jewetts stopped making payments before March 2016. U.S. Bank sent a notice of right to cure in July 2018 and initiated foreclosure proceedings against the Jewetts in September 2018, also naming Unifund as a party due to its judgment lien on the property.The District Court (Newport, Larson, J.) conducted a bench trial and dismissed U.S. Bank’s foreclosure action without prejudice, finding that U.S. Bank’s notice of default and right to cure did not comply with statutory requirements under 14 M.R.S. § 6111. The court’s order barred U.S. Bank from recovering attorney fees, costs, and certain charges in any future action, but did not expressly bar claims for unaccelerated amounts due under the note. Unifund then moved to alter or amend the judgment, seeking a judgment in favor of the Jewetts to preclude future claims for unaccelerated amounts, but the court denied the motion.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the matter de novo. It held that when a foreclosure action is dismissed due to a defective notice of default and right to cure, the dismissal is not on the merits, but claim preclusion applies to any amounts that could have been litigated in the action. The court concluded that the District Court was within its authority to dismiss the case without prejudice and was not required to enter a judgment for the Jewetts or explicitly bar future claims for unaccelerated amounts. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Jewett" on Justia Law

A Greek and Australian citizen and a U.S. citizen, who married in Australia, had a child together and lived in Australia before relocating to Greece. In late 2022, the family traveled to Maine for a planned vacation. On the day before their scheduled return to Greece, the mother informed the father that she and the child would not return with him. The father returned to Greece alone, while the mother and child remained in Maine, where the child began receiving developmental services and became integrated into the local community. The child was later diagnosed with autism and enrolled in a therapeutic program. The mother filed for divorce in Maine, and the father subsequently sought the child’s return to Greece under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.The Maine District Court found that the mother wrongfully retained the child in Maine as of January 4, 2023, but that the father did not file a petition for the child’s return in a Maine court until April 19, 2024—more than one year later. The court also found that the child was well settled in Maine, with significant family support, stable living arrangements, and access to specialized services. Exercising its discretion, the court denied the father’s petition to return the child to Greece. The father appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court determined that the order was reviewable under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. The court held that the District Court did not err in finding the date of wrongful retention, nor in concluding that the father’s petition was untimely under the Hague Convention. The court also affirmed the finding that the child was well settled in Maine and held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for return. The judgment was affirmed. View "Xamplas v. Xamplas" on Justia Law