Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kiril Lozanov and Capital City Renewables, Inc. (CCR) appealed a Superior Court decision granting summary judgment in favor of Lily B. Piel. Lozanov and CCR alleged that Piel, a former employee, accessed and disclosed Lozanov’s personal emails without authorization, which included confidential information about a wind project unrelated to CCR. Lozanov claimed that Piel’s actions led to increased child support obligations and health issues due to stress from related litigation.The Superior Court dismissed CCR’s claim for intrusion upon seclusion, as the company did not have a right to privacy in Lozanov’s emails. Lozanov’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was also dismissed, as the court found Piel’s conduct was not outrageous enough to warrant such a claim. The court allowed Lozanov’s intrusion upon seclusion claim to proceed but ultimately granted summary judgment for Piel on all counts, finding no evidence that Piel’s actions caused the alleged damages.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The court found no evidence that Piel breached any duty owed to CCR or that her actions caused the damages claimed by Lozanov and CCR. The court also concluded that CCR's and Lozanov’s damages were too remote and speculative to support their claims. Additionally, the court noted that public policy considerations barred recovery, as Lozanov’s attempt to hide assets in a child support proceeding was contrary to the best interests of the child and public policy. View "Capital City Renewables, Inc. v. Piel" on Justia Law

Patrick Bolduc and Savannah Getchius were married in 2011 and have three minor children. Bolduc filed for divorce in 2021. After two unsuccessful mediations, a final divorce hearing was held in June 2023. The District Court awarded Bolduc sole parental rights and responsibilities and divided the marital property. The court found that Bolduc's property, purchased before the marriage, appreciated in value during the marriage due to both market forces and marital improvements.The District Court determined that the entire appreciation of the property during the marriage was marital property. The court also ordered Getchius to pay $325 weekly in child support and $10,000 of Bolduc's attorney fees. Bolduc filed motions for further findings and to alter the judgment, which the court mostly denied, except for making limited additional findings.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court's decision on the classification of the real property, agreeing that Bolduc did not meet his burden to prove that the appreciation was solely due to market forces. The court also upheld the child support order, finding no error in the calculation or the decision not to order Getchius to pay $1,800 for uninsured medical expenses. However, the court found that the attorney fee award was based on an affidavit that included fees unrelated to the divorce proceedings. The court vacated the attorney fee award and remanded for recalculation of the fees properly subject to an award in the divorce action. View "Bolduc v. Getchius" on Justia Law

Kateryna A. Bagrii sought to establish herself as a de facto parent of two children whose biological parents are John P. Campbell and Jie Chen. Bagrii claimed she had acted as a parent to the children since 2014, after Campbell brought them from China to Ukraine without Chen's consent. Bagrii and Campbell later married and moved to the United States with the children. Bagrii argued that she had taken on full parental responsibilities and that her relationship with the children was in their best interests.The District Court (Newport, Ociepka, J.) dismissed Bagrii’s complaint for lack of standing, finding that although she proved most elements required for de facto parentage, she failed to demonstrate that Chen had fostered or supported her relationship with the children or accepted her parental role. The court noted that Chen had not consented to the children's removal from China and had not known their whereabouts for several years.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The court held that under the Maine Parentage Act, a person seeking de facto parent status must prove that all legal parents who appear and object to the petition have fostered or supported the relationship. The court found that Chen had not implicitly or explicitly consented to Bagrii’s parental role. The court also rejected Bagrii’s request to exercise parens patriae authority, stating that due process principles require proof of consent from all legal parents. Thus, the judgment dismissing Bagrii’s complaint for lack of standing was affirmed. View "Bagrii v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Pat Doe and Jarrod Burnham each filed complaints for protection from abuse against each other in December 2021. Doe's complaint was transferred to Portland for a consolidated hearing, where the court found that Burnham had abused Doe and granted her a two-year protection order effective until January 14, 2024. On January 4, 2024, Doe attempted to file a motion to extend the protection order in Bangor but was informed it needed to be filed in Portland. She mailed the motion on January 13, 2024, but it never arrived due to insufficient postage. Doe learned the order had not been extended on January 17, 2024, and filed a new protection from abuse action in Bangor.The District Court in Portland denied Doe's motion to extend the protection order, concluding it could not extend an expired order. Doe's motion for reconsideration was also denied, with the court finding that her failure to file on time was not excusable neglect and that the statute did not permit extending an expired order. Doe then filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing excusable neglect, which was also denied. The court stated that excusable neglect under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) did not apply to statutory deadlines.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decisions, holding that 19-A M.R.S. § 4111(1) unambiguously prohibits extending an expired protection order. The court also held that a motion for relief from judgment cannot be used to circumvent statutory authority, and thus the trial court did not err in denying Doe's motion for relief from judgment. View "Doe v. Burnham" on Justia Law

Michaela Boland filed for divorce in October 2019. In September 2022, the parties reached a settlement agreement regarding the economic issues of their divorce, which was accepted by the court. The agreement included a provision for Nicholas Belair to transfer $50,000 annually to Michaela for five years, secured by a promissory note from Nicholas's father, Roland Belair. However, Roland later reneged on his commitment to fund the payments, leading Michaela to file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.The District Court (Tice, J.) denied Michaela's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding that the agreement was based on a material mistake of fact and was therefore unenforceable. The court concluded that Nicholas could not make the payments without his father's assistance and set the matter for trial. Michaela appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory. The court (D. Driscoll, J.) later held a bench trial and determined that Nicholas's interest in a real estate company was nonmarital property, leading to a final divorce judgment.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and held that the settlement agreement was enforceable. The court found that all requirements for a binding settlement agreement were met, as the parties had reported the agreement to the court, read its terms into the record, and expressed clear consent. The court concluded that there was no mistake of fact at the time the agreement was reached, as Roland had agreed to fund the payments. The court vacated the order denying Michaela's motion to enforce, vacated the divorce judgment, and remanded for incorporation of the settlement agreement into a divorce judgment. View "Boland v. Belair" on Justia Law

Yolanda M. Currier and James M. Currier were married in 2000, and Yolanda filed for divorce in 2017. The divorce judgment, entered in 2019, awarded Yolanda sole parental rights and responsibilities for their three children, child support, spousal support, and half the value of James’s employee stock plan and 401(k) account. James was found to have committed economic misconduct by cashing in stocks and taking loans against his 401(k) during the divorce proceedings.The District Court (South Paris) found James in contempt multiple times for failing to comply with the divorce judgment. In 2023, Yolanda filed a fifth motion for contempt, asserting that James failed to provide an accounting of his stocks and did not file a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) account. The court found James not in contempt regarding the stock division, concluding that Yolanda did not prove James owned stocks. However, the court found James in contempt regarding the 401(k) account, valuing it at $7,000 and awarding Yolanda $3,500.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found that the District Court erred in its findings. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that Yolanda met her burden of proving James’s noncompliance with the stock accounting and division order. The court also found that the District Court erred in valuing the 401(k) account at $7,000, as this figure excluded the value of loans taken against the account, contrary to the divorce judgment’s provisions.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, noting James’s pattern of noncompliance and suggesting the consideration of punitive sanctions if his contumacious conduct continues. View "Currier v. Currier" on Justia Law

Pat Doe filed a complaint for protection from harassment against John Costin on behalf of her two minor children, alleging aggressive behavior by Costin, including blocking their car at school. The District Court issued a temporary order for protection, which was later made permanent for the children but not for Doe. Doe did not request attorney fees within the required time frame.Doe later moved to modify the order, fearing that Costin might access the school after a no-trespass notice expired. The court modified the order to prohibit Costin from entering the school when the children were present and awarded Doe attorney fees. Costin opposed the modification and the attorney fees, arguing the motion was frivolous and untimely.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. The court found the appeal regarding the modified order moot since it had expired. However, it reviewed the attorney fees award, determining that the lower court erred in awarding fees for services provided before the motion to modify. The court vacated the attorney fees award and remanded the case for reconsideration of fees related only to the motion to modify. View "Doe v. Costin" on Justia Law

Christian D., the father of a three-year-old child, appealed a judgment by the District Court (South Paris) that terminated his parental rights. The court found him unfit as a parent and determined that termination was in the child's best interest. The father argued that the court abused its discretion by not making specific findings of fact to support its decision and by not adequately considering a permanency guardianship as an alternative to termination.The District Court found that the father was unfit based on three grounds under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), and (iv). The court noted that the child had been in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for 26 of his 35 months and that the child needed permanency, which the father could not provide in a timely manner. The child had been living in a stable and nurturing foster home with his maternal grandparents, who were willing to adopt him.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that the District Court properly exercised its discretion and that the record supported the findings that termination of the father's parental rights and adoption were in the child's best interest. The court also rejected the father's argument that Rule 52(a) precluded reliance on inferences or implicit findings, noting that the trial court's findings were sufficient to support the judgment. The court emphasized the importance of permanency for the child and found that the father's inability to provide a stable environment justified the termination of his parental rights. View "In re Child of Christian D." on Justia Law

Taylor M. appealed a judgment from the District Court terminating her parental rights to her child, arguing that her due process rights were violated and that the court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The child, born prematurely with various medical conditions, required extensive care. Taylor M., a registered member of the Mi’kmaq Nation, was largely absent during the child’s initial hospitalization. The Department of Health and Human Services filed for a child protection order, which was granted, and the child was placed with resource parents.The District Court held a jeopardy hearing in January 2023, finding clear and convincing evidence of jeopardy due to Taylor M.’s inability to care for the child. The court scheduled several hearings, but delays occurred, and the child’s resource parents moved out of state with the Department and tribe’s agreement. In October 2023, the Department filed a petition to terminate Taylor M.’s parental rights. At the consolidated hearing in January 2024, the court heard testimony from various parties, including the ICWA director for the Mi’kmaq Nation.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found that the District Court complied with ICWA requirements. The court determined that the Department made active efforts to reunify the family and that Taylor M. did not take significant steps to address the jeopardy. The court also found beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody by Taylor M. would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. The court affirmed the termination of Taylor M.’s parental rights, concluding that the child’s placement with the resource parents was appropriate and in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Taylor M." on Justia Law

A District Court in Caribou, Maine, issued a judgment in February 2024 regarding the parental rights and responsibilities of a child born to Andrew M. Landeen and Ashley Burch, who were former romantic partners but never married. The court granted primary physical residence to Burch and visitation rights to Landeen. Additionally, the court changed the child's last name to "Landeen" without providing specific findings or comments on the decision. Burch appealed the name change, and Landeen cross-appealed the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.The District Court's judgment was based on the best interest of the child, considering factors such as the parents' ability to cooperate and the child's emotional and physical safety. The court found that Landeen's persistent anger towards Burch and his inability to manage frustration appropriately were detrimental to the child's best interest. Consequently, the court allocated primary parental rights to Burch while allowing Landeen visitation rights and the right to be informed of major decisions concerning the child.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found that the District Court's allocation of parental rights and responsibilities was supported by the record and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment changing the child's last name. The court held that the father’s desire to change the child's surname, based solely on tradition and without supporting evidence, did not meet the statutory requirement of showing "good cause" or that the change was in the child's best interest. The court emphasized that both parents have equal rights in naming their child and that any name change must be justified by the child's best interest. View "Landeen v. Burch" on Justia Law