Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

John M. Carter and Ann C. Martin were married in 2015. Carter initiated divorce proceedings in March 2023. On June 6, 2025, a hearing was held in the Maine District Court, at which both parties testified remotely. The court orally announced that the divorce would be final as of that day if both parties filed waivers of appeal. Carter filed his waiver that same day, but Martin did not. The court determined that additional real estate orders were needed before finalizing the judgment. Before the court signed the final written judgment and the real estate orders on July 3, 2025, Carter died on June 27, 2025.Following Carter’s death, Martin filed a motion for relief from or to alter the judgment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter a final divorce judgment after Carter’s death. The District Court denied her motion, citing Boland v. Belair, and reasoned that the settlement the parties had reached should be binding. Martin then appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case de novo and held that because Carter died before the court signed the final judgment, the marriage was automatically terminated by death. Therefore, the District Court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction to enter a divorce judgment, as there was no longer a marriage to dissolve. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the judgment signed after Carter’s death was void and that the use of nunc pro tunc was not valid to retroactively finalize the divorce. The court vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the divorce action. View "Estate of Carter v. Martin" on Justia Law

A married couple acquired real estate in Bucksport, Maine, during their marriage and operated a short-term rental business on the property through a jointly owned limited liability company (LLC). They also owned a 2009 SeaRey airplane, acquired during their marriage. After the wife obtained a protection from abuse order against the husband in June 2022, she operated and maintained the business and prepared the real estate for sale without his involvement. The parties reached a partial settlement on some divorce issues, but disputed the division of the Bucksport property, the status and value of the airplane, and the dissolution of the LLC.The District Court in Bangor entered a divorce judgment incorporating the parties’ partial agreement. The court awarded the wife 60% of the value of the Bucksport real estate, attributing the increase in value to her post-separation efforts. It determined the airplane was marital property used primarily for personal purposes, valued it at $37,500, and awarded it to the husband, requiring him to compensate the wife for her share or to sell and divide the proceeds. The court also ordered the dissolution of the LLC and distribution of any profits. The husband appealed, challenging the division of real estate, the airplane’s use and valuation, and the dissolution of the LLC.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the District Court’s finding that the airplane was marital property and not a business asset, but vacated the valuation of the airplane, finding insufficient evidence to support the assigned value. The Court also held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order dissolution of the LLC as part of the divorce. The judgment was vacated as to the distribution of the Bucksport real estate, the airplane’s valuation, and the LLC dissolution, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. The divorce judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "Adams v. Delong" 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 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

A couple who had served as resource parents for a child involved in a protective custody proceeding filed a petition to adopt the child. Their petition was denied by the District Court, which instead granted adoption to another couple. The District Court based its decision on its determination that adoption by the other couple was in the child’s best interest. The resource parents appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which affirmed the District Court’s decision, finding no clear error or abuse of discretion.Almost a year later, the resource parents filed several motions in the District Court, including a motion under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking relief from the adoption judgment. They argued that the adoptive parents had fraudulently misrepresented the nature of their relationship during the adoption proceedings and that new evidence supported their claim. The District Court denied these motions with prejudice, later providing a more detailed explanation. The court found the proffered evidence to be either discoverable at the time of trial, related to events occurring after judgment, or insufficient to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The court also declined to hold an evidentiary hearing and ordered the resource parents to pay the adoptive parents’ attorney fees and costs.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion and the attorney fee award de novo. It concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief from judgment or in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing, as the evidence was either not newly discovered or did not meet the heightened standard for fraud. However, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the order awarding attorney fees, finding no basis for a sanction, and otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Adoption by Kathleen C." on Justia Law

Kathleen L. Jellison filed for divorce from Ralph E. Jellison, and the District Court incorporated the parties’ agreement regarding the division of marital assets. Kathleen was awarded the marital home, valued at $250,000 and subject to a $45,823.58 home equity loan, while Ralph received the Verso 401(k) account with a similar value. Both parties and the court agreed this was an equitable division, though Kathleen later contended she had not entered the agreement knowingly and voluntarily, and sought to hold Ralph responsible for half of the home equity debt.After the original judgment, Kathleen filed post-judgment motions, and the District Court amended its judgment to order Ralph to pay $30,000 from his 401(k) to Kathleen, which she was to apply to the home equity loan. Kathleen appealed, arguing the asset division remained inequitable. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the amended judgment in Jellison v. Jellison, Mem-24-115. Ralph did not cross-appeal.Subsequently, Ralph filed motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(a) and then Rule 60(b), arguing that the provision requiring him to pay $30,000 was a mistake. The District Court granted relief under Rule 60(b), striking the payment provision and amending the judgment. Kathleen appealed this order.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the District Court erred in granting Ralph’s Rule 60(b) motion because it conflicted with the appellate mandate affirming the amended judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court clarified that a lower court may not modify matters expressly or impliedly disposed of on appeal, and Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for appellate review or a means to challenge issues not raised on direct appeal. The order granting Ralph’s motion for relief from judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded with instructions to deny the motion. View "Jellison v. Jellison" on Justia Law

The parties in this case are the parents of a ten-year-old daughter and share equal residential care for her. Their original 2016 order set a child support obligation for the father, but a 2020 amended agreement reduced this obligation to zero, reflecting their arrangement of equal parenting time. In December 2023, both parties filed motions seeking modification of the parental rights and responsibilities order. During the pendency of these motions, the father had a son with another person, but the son was not covered by the child support order at issue.Following a hearing, the Maine District Court (Biddeford) ordered the father to resume paying child support to the mother and denied his request for a downward adjustment based on his obligation to support his new son. The District Court reasoned that under Maine’s statutory scheme, only a nonresidential parent—rather than a coresidential parent like the father—could receive such an adjustment. The court subsequently denied the father’s motion to alter or amend the judgment.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the statutory interpretation of 19-A M.R.S. § 2006(5)(A) de novo. The Court held that when both parents provide substantially equal care, neither is the “primary care provider” referenced in the statute. Therefore, the statutory provision allowing a child support adjustment for a parent who is not the primary care provider applies. Because the father was legally obligated to support his son in his household and neither party was the primary care provider for their daughter, the Court determined he was entitled to the statutory adjustment. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the District Court’s child support order and remanded the matter for recalculation consistent with its interpretation. View "Waterman v. Wheeler" 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

A married couple with three minor children separated after more than a decade together, with the wife returning to Maine with the children and the husband remaining in the marital home in Atlanta. The wife, who had been the primary homemaker, filed for divorce, seeking division of property, spousal support, child support, and attorney fees. The husband, who had a significantly higher income, continued to pay the mortgage on the marital home, which had substantial equity.The Maine District Court in Calais held a contested hearing and entered a divorce judgment. The court awarded shared parental rights, primary physical residence of the children to the wife, and divided the marital property by awarding the home to the husband but granting the wife half the equity. The husband was ordered to pay spousal and child support, as well as the wife’s attorney fees. The husband filed post-judgment motions seeking clarification and amendment, particularly regarding the calculation of spousal support and attorney fees. The court reaffirmed its findings, including imputing minimum-wage income to the wife and finding the attorney fee award reasonable. The husband then appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found a clerical error in the District Court’s property distribution table, which double-counted the equity in the marital home. This error potentially affected the determinations of spousal support and attorney fees. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment as to the property distribution calculations and remanded for correction and reconsideration of spousal support and attorney fees in light of the corrected figures. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. The Court denied the wife’s request for appellate attorney fees as sanctions but allowed her to seek such fees in the trial court. View "Newman v. Riser" on Justia Law

Deborah A. Chatfield filed for divorce from Frederick H. Chatfield Jr. on July 14, 2021. Frederick initially had legal representation, but his attorney withdrew in December 2021, leaving him to represent himself. A final hearing was held on August 23, 2024, which Frederick did not attend. The court granted the divorce and classified certain real estate in Rockport as marital property, ordering its sale. Frederick did not appeal the divorce judgment or request further findings of fact.Frederick later retained counsel and filed a motion for relief from judgment under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b), arguing that the property was nonmarital, the court lacked jurisdiction, and Deborah's belief that the property was marital was a mistake. The District Court (Rockland) denied the motion, finding that Frederick had not protected his interests during the original proceedings and had not provided justification for his absence. The court also found no credible evidence to support Frederick's claims.The Estate of Frederick H. Chatfield Jr. appealed the denial to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, considering whether the lower court's findings were supported by the record, whether the court understood the applicable law, and whether the court's decisions were reasonable. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion or clear error. The court noted that Frederick failed to protect his interests by not attending the hearing, not filing for further findings, and not appealing the original judgment. The court also found that the lower court had jurisdiction over the property and that Frederick did not meet the burden of proof required for relief under Rule 60(b). View "Chatfield v. Estate of Chatfield" on Justia Law