Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Paul Ligor, the son of Mary Hiller, applied for informal probate and was appointed personal representative of Hiller’s estate after her death. Three of Ligor’s siblings filed multiple actions, including a petition to remove Ligor as personal representative and a complaint seeking review of Ligor’s conduct as Hiller’s agent. The probate court (1) found Ligor had solicited a power of attorney when Hiller was not of sound mind and then wrongfully depleted Hiller’s assets and estate before and after Hiller’s death; (2) found Ligor had breached his fiduciary duty owed to Hiller; and (3) ordered Ligor to repay to Hiller’s estate the sums he wrongfully took. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the probate court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the siblings’ breach of fiduciary duty claim; and (2) the remainder of Ligor’s arguments on appeal were not properly preserved. View "In re Estate of Hiller" on Justia Law

The Department of Environmental Protection granted DCP Midstream Partners, LP, a permit to construct a liquefied petroleum gas terminal near Searsport. Thanks But No Tank and several individuals (collectively TBNT) sought review of the Department's decision. The superior court affirmed. Four months after TBNT filed its notice of appeal, DCP withdrew its municipal application and petitioned the Department to surrender the permits. The Department granted DCP's petition. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed this appeal as moot and (1) declined to vacate the judgment of the superior court, and (2) denied TBNT's motion for costs, as it was not a prevailing party pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 1501. View "Thanks But No Tank v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs owned property near but not on Sebago Lake. Defendants owned shorefront property on the lake. Through their deeds, Plaintiffs acquired an easement consisting of a right-of-way over lot 40A, a strip of land situated between Defendants' lots. In 2007, the lot was conveyed to Defendants. Before the conveyance, Plaintiffs obtained a permit for the construction of a dock extending from the lot to the lake. In 2010, the Town's code enforcement officer rescinded the permit and ordered the dock to be removed. The Town's zoning board upheld the enforcement officer's decision. Plaintiffs filed suit, challenging the zoning board's decision and Defendants' fee simple title to the lot and seeking a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to maintain a dock on the lot. Ultimately, the superior court found Defendants held fee simple title to the lot and that the easement held by Plaintiffs did not grant them a right to maintain the dock. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the deed in Defendants' chains of title unambiguously excepted the lot from a prior conveyance and that deeds in Plaintiffs' chains of title were ambiguous as to whether the dock was allowed. Remanded. View "Sleeper v. Loring" on Justia Law

After Father and Mother divorced, Mother maintained primary physical custody of the parties’ two daughters, and Father and Mother shared joint legal custody of the girls. Mother later filed a motion to modify the custody order. The trial court granted the motion and eliminated overnight visitation with Father, finding that the girls were inadequately fed after visits with Father, that Father failed to take one daughter’s asthma seriously, and that Father had been “convicted” of offensive touching. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court’s finding that Father had been convicted of a crime was clear error, but the error was harmless; and (2) the trial court’s findings were sufficient to support the result in this case. View "Gordon v. Cheskin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of aggravated trafficking of a schedule W drug within one thousand feet of a school and of twice violating the conditions of his release in a related case. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction review, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation to discover three recent pending criminal matters against a key witness and in failing to impeach the credibility of the witness on that basis. The post-conviction court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record supported the court's finding that defense counsel provided effective assistance regarding the witness' second and third criminal matters; and (2) the court did not err in concluding that discovering and impeaching the witness on the first criminal matter likely would not have affected the outcome of the trial. View "Lamarre v. State" on Justia Law

Shellie and Robert Symonds executed a lease agreement granting AT&T Mobility the right to use a portion of their property to build a wireless communication tower. The town planning board approved AT&T's application seeking approval for the project. William Horton and others appealed, and the town zoning board of appeals (ZBA) upheld the planning board's approval of AT&T's application. Horton appealed, arguing that the lease agreement created a new lot that did not meet the minimum space and setback requirements of the town's zoning ordinances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lease did not create a new lot and that the setback requirements of the relevant zoning ordinance were satisfied. View "Horton v. Town of Casco" on Justia Law

In 2006, the district court awarded shared parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' children, with Mother having primary residence. In 2012, Father filed successive motions to enforce and to modify. After a hearing, the district court ruled there had been a substantial change in circumstances and that it was in the children's best interest that their primary residence be changed to Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to establish a substantial change in circumstances justifying a change in the children's primary residence and that the district court did not err in applying the statutory best interest factors in reaching its decision. View "Brasier v. Preble" on Justia Law

The district court ordered Defendant to pay a civil penalty and attorney fees and to remove three unregistered, uninspected vehicles from his property after finding that he maintained an automobile graveyard on his property in violation of Me. Rev. Stat. 30-A, 3753. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not misconstrue the applicable law in determining that the vehicles on Defendant's property did not meet the definition of "antique auto"; (2) did not clearly err in finding that one of the vehicles on Defendant's property was not a tractor used solely for logging purposes; (3) did not err by accepting Defendant's interrogatory answers into evidence and finding that his truck was an "altered vehicle"; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in declining to award additional attorney fees to the Town of China. View "Town of China v. Althenn" on Justia Law

Thirteen-year-old Timothy Bell suffered serious injuries when he skateboarded out of Randall and Rose Dawson's driveway and was struck by a moving vehicle on the roadway. Teresa Bell, on behalf of her son, filed an action against the Dawsons for negligent supervision and negligently creating or allowing dangerous topographical conditions - specifically, vegetation growth - on their property. The superior court entered judgment in favor of the Dawsons, concluding (1) the Dawsons owed no duty of care to Timothy because Timothy was not in a custodial relationship with the Dawsons when the accident occurred, and (2) there was no indication that growth of trees or bushes on the Dawsons' property contributed to the accident. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court did not err in finding Timothy did not have a custodial relationship with the Dawsons the morning of the accident; and (2) the Dawsons did not have a duty to Timothy to have provided an unobstructed view of the driveway on their premises from the roadway. View "Bell v. Dawson" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on charges of burglary and theft. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to three search warrants for Defendant's house, garage, and car. The superior court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the first affidavit did not establish probable cause for a search and that the evidence seized pursuant to the third search warrant, which allowed officers to search Defendant's house again after the initial search, must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of the evidence obtained in the three searches, holding (1) the first affidavit provided an insufficient basis for a finding of probable cause; (2) the officers' reliance on the warrants was not objectively reasonable; and (3) because the third warrant relied heavily on observations officers made while executing the first warrant, the evidence seized pursuant to that warrant must also be suppressed. View "State v. Johndro" on Justia Law