Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant's mother (Miller) opened a checking account with Bank. Appellant alleged that Miller added him as joint owner of the account with right of survivorship. After Miller died, Appellant withdrew all of the funds in the account. Miller's Estate brought an action against Appellant, alleging that the funds Appellant had withdrawn from the account belonged to the Estate. The probate court determined that Miller was the sole owner of the checking account and that the funds Appellant had withdrawn were the property of the Estate. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later sued the Bank, seeking damages for breach of contract and negligence for failing to retain the records that would show his ownership of the account. Appellant also sought punitive damages. The superior court dismissed the action based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, concluding that the precise issue of ownership was common to both proceedings. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed as to the breach of contract and punitive damages claims; but (2) vacated as to the negligence claim, holding that Appellant's negligence claim against the Bank was not barred by collateral estoppel, as the probate court did not adjudicate the factual issues related to this claim. View "Gray v. TD Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Appellant Timothy Daniels appealed a superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility and North Country Associates, Inc. Appellant contended that the court erred in concluding that Narraguagus and North Country were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his disability discrimination and retaliation claims made pursuant to Maine's Human Rights Act. Appellant suffered a work-related injury to his right shoulder in 2007 and thereafter was given work restrictions by his physician that prevented him from performing all of the work duties he had previously handled. In 2008, Appellant underwent surgery and then began a leave of absence. A few months later, Appellant notified his employer that he was applying for more leave at her insistence. In that letter, Appellant also reported that he had been cleared for light duty work, accused his supervisor of refusing to accommodate his disability, and asked for light duty work. No work was afforded to Appellant as a result of that letter. Appellant suffered another work-related injury to his right shoulder in 2009, and, although he did not lose any time from work as a result of that injury, he was restricted to modified duty for the next three months. During that period Appellant was disciplined for performance issues. Early in November 2009, when Daniels no longer had any work restrictions, a new Narraguagus administrator gave Appellant a performance improvement plan for failing to complete some tasks at all and failing to complete other tasks on time. In November, 2009, in response to the complaint that he filed in 2008, the Commission issued Appellant a right-to-sue letter pursuant to the Human Rights Act. When state regulators visited Narraguagus to conduct a licensing inspection, they uncovered issues that resulted in fines to the facility. Narraguagus blamed Appellant for the negative inspection and terminated his employment on January 29, 2010. After his termination, Appellant filed a two-count complaint against Narraguagus and North Country. On appeal, Appellant advanced two theories of liability against North Country: (1) that it can be liable because it is part of an integrated enterprise with Narraguagus, and (2) that it acted in Narraguagus’s interest in discriminating against him. Finding multiple issues of disputed facts regarding North Country's involvement in the actions that Appellant claimed constituted discrimination and retaliation, the Supreme Court vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Daniels v. Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility" on Justia Law

Defendant Rogers Harrell appealed his conviction on domestic violence charges for which he received seven months' incarceration and a fine of $300. On appeal, Defendant argued that the fine was not mandatory, and that the sentencing court erred in concluding that the domestic-violence-assault statute incorporated the minimum fine mandated by the simple-assault statute. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Defendant's argument and vacated the fine. View "Maine v. Harrell" on Justia Law

Scott Liberty appealed a superior court's interlocutory order that denied his motion to reconsider his motion to disqualify attorney Martha Gaythwaite from representing Jeffrey Bennett. Liberty contended that Gaythwaite should have been disqualified because she previously represented Liberty's former attorney David Van Dyke in a legal malpractice action brought by Liberty. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found that Liberty failed to demonstrate that any exception to the "final judgment rule" should have applied to justify reaching the merits of this appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Liberty's appeal. View "Liberty v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Jessica Hamm appealed a judgment of the district court awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' daughter to Budd Grant. Hamm argued that the court abused its discretion by relying largely on its determination that she willfully misused the protection from abuse process to the exclusion of other best interest factors and without making adequate findings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did no err in finding that Hamm willfully misused the protection from abuse process; (2) properly considered several of the best interest factors; and (3) did not err or abuse its discretion in its ultimate award of sole parental rights and responsibilities to Grant with limited rights of contact awarded to Hamm. View "Grant v. Hamm" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a consent decree entered into by the City of Westbrook, Pike Industries, Inc., and intervenor IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. to settle a land use dispute arising from Pike's operation of a quarry in Westbrook. Intervenors Artel, Inc. and Smiling Hill Farm, Inc. appealed from the approval and entry of the consent decree in the business and consumer docket as a final judgment in Pike's Me. R. Civ. P. 80B appeal and the City's Me. R. Civ. P. 80K counterclaim. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed as to the court's denial of an evidentiary hearing and its determination that the City had the authority to settle this litigation through a consent decree declaring Pike's operation of a quarry on its property to be a grandfathered use under the City's zoning ordinance; and (2) otherwise vacated the judgment relating to the detailed performance and use standards adopted by the consent decree that would supersede otherwise applicable provisions of the City's zoning ordinance. View "Pike Indus., Inc. v. City of Westbrook" on Justia Law

Andrew and Abby Desmond divorced pursuant to a judgment providing that their child would have primary physical residence with Abby and that no set schedule for contact with Andrew was anticipated as a result of Andrew's anticipated assignments as a U.S. Marine in other countries. On a motion to modify the divorce judgment, the court ordered that the child have regular and meaningful contact with Andrew, who was then based in Japan. After holding several status conferences and multiple case management conferences to assure that a summer visit occurred, Andrew ultimately declined to effectual a summer visit. The district court then entered an order determining that the visit could not occur and terminating the services of the guardian ad litem. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) determining that Andrew's decision not to propose an alternate schedule for the visit was "regrettable"; (2) terminating the services of the GAL; and (3) denying Andrew's Me. R. Civ. P. 52(b) motion. View "Desmond v. Desmond" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the City of Saco's approval of a contract zoning agreement for property purchased by Estates at Bay View, LLC. Several nearby property owners (collectively, the Neighbors) filed a five-count complaint in the superior court challenging the legality of the contract zoning agreement and the Saco Planning Board's subsequent approval of a subdivision and site plan for the property. The superior court granted the City's motion to dismiss three of the counts, granted summary judgment in favor of the City and Bay View on one of the counts, and affirmed the decision of the Board on the final count. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no merit in the Neighbors' arguments regarding all of their claims except the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City; and (2) the superior court did not err in granting summary judgment to the City and Bay View, as the contract zone agreement met the requirements of Me. Rev. Stat. 30-A, 4352(8)(C). View "Golder v. City of Saco" on Justia Law

Richard Herzog was convicted of domestic violence assault and sentenced to twenty days in jail, all suspended, and two years of probation with conditions, including the condition that Herzog could not possess or use unlawful drugs or alcohol. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that the district court properly applied the law of self-defense and did not err in its factual findings; and (2) affirmed the sentence as modified, holding that the term of probation exceeded the statutory maximum, and thus, the sentence was adjusted to decrease the period of probation from two years to one year. View "State v. Herzog" on Justia Law

Covanta Maine, LLC (Covanta), a subsidiary of Covanta Energy, appealed from orders of the Public Utilities Commission denying Covanta's requests for certification of two of its facilities as Class I new renewable resources. Covanta argued that the Commission erred by basing its conclusion that the facilities were not refurbished on the ratio of Covanta's expenditures in the facilities to the value of those facilities, and it therefore asserted that the Commission improperly denied certification of its two facilities. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Commission, holding that the Commission erred by establishing a requirement that the expenditures meet some minimum level that equals an unspecified percentage of the total value of the facility. Remanded. View "Covanta Maine, LLC v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n" on Justia Law