Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Timothy Akers appealed from a judgment on judgment on the parties' cross-motions for modification of their stipulated amended divorce judgment entered in the district court. The court left primary residence of the parties' daughter with the mother, Jennifer Akers, during the school year and ordered Timothy to pay child support. On appeal, Timothy argued that the court erred in (1) weighing the evidence presented at trial regarding the primary residence of the child and (2) computing the amount of child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that the best interests of the child would be best served by continuing primary, school-week residence with the mother and providing substantial contact with the father; and (2) Timothy did not preserve his second issue for appeal. View "Akers v. Akers" on Justia Law

After three years of marriage, George Sloan filed a complaint for divorce from Erin Christianson. The district court entered a divorce judgment awarding shared parental rights and responsibilities of the couple's son to Sloan to Christianson, primary residence of the son to Christianson, and unsupervised contact with the son to Sloan on days when Sloan was not working. Sloan subsequently filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment to obtain sole parental rights and responsibilities and primary residence of the son, alleging a substantial change in circumstances. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in making its factual findings, err as a matter of law, or abuse its discretion in awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities to Sloan. View "Sloan v. Christianson" on Justia Law

Leete & Lemieux, P.A. (L&L) provided legal services to James Horowitz and Oxford Aviation, Inc. (collectively, Horowitz) for several years. When L&L stopped receiving payments for its services, it filed a four-count complaint against Horowitz for failure to pay $10,917 for legal services rendered, plus interest. The district court stayed the action until resolution by the fee arbitration commission. A fee arbitration panel determined that Horowitz owed L&L the full amount of the unpaid fees charges plus interest. The district court affirmed the award of the panel. Horowitz appealed, arguing that the court (1) was required to vacate the arbitration award because the panel allegedly determined that it did not have the power to decide whether L&L's claim was time-barred, and (2) erred in confirming the award because it remained within the trial court's authority to decide a statute-of-limitations defense that was not subject to arbitration and was not decided during arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed because Horowitz did not preserve a statute-of-limitations defense at the proper procedural stage of the proceedings, and therefore, the statute-of-limitations defense was waived. View "Leete & Lemieux, P.A. v. Horowitz" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Timothy Mooney was found guilty of trafficking in prison contraband. Mooney appealed, arguing that the superior court erred by (1) allowing a corrections officer to testify about details of the incident giving rise to Mooney's criminal charge, and (2) allowing an investigator to testify as to additional charges that would have been brought against Mooney had another inmate cooperated with the investigation. The Supreme Court vacated Mooney's conviction, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the corrections officer's testimony; (2) the trial court erred by admitting the investigator's irrelevant testimony in evidence; and (3) the error was not harmless. View "State v. Mooney" on Justia Law

Several lot owners appealed from a judgment entered in the superior court finding that they were not entitled to form a road association pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 23, 3101 and were bound by certain restrictive covenants to pay an annual maintenance fee to Pine Springs Road and Water, LLC (PSRW) for subdivision road maintenance. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court, holding (1) the lot owners were authorized to establish a statutory road association pursuant to section 3101; and (2) the lot owners were not obligated to pay PSRW or its predecessor an annual road maintenance fee under the restrictive covenants. Remanded. View "Goudreau v. Pine Springs Rd. & Water, LLC" on Justia Law

Following a jury-waived trial, Peter DeGennaro was convicted of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer. DeGennaro appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the superior court's finding that he unlawfully controlled "the property of another" and insufficient as a matter of fact to support the court's finding concerning his intent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the charge in the indictment that DeGennaro committed theft by unauthorized taking was also a charge that he committed any other theft offense under chapter 15 of the Criminal Code that the evidence supported; and (2) pursuant to the consolidation section of the statutory chapter setting out theft offenses, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that DeGennaro was guilty of theft by deception. View "State v. DeGennaro" on Justia Law

Lisa Douglas appealed from the district court's order granting Paul Douglas's motion to modify the couple's divorce judgment. Lisa argued that the court abused its discretion in modifying the divorce judgment to permit supervised, therapeutic reunification of the couple's child with Paul and that the court erred in finding the guardian ad litem fees reasonable. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment granting the modify, as there was sufficient evidence to establish a substantial change of circumstances justifying a modification of the parties' divorce decree; but (2) vacated the judgment regarding the guardian ad litem fees, as the court's decision did not include sufficient findings to support its judgment. Remanded. View "Douglas v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Defendant Cory LaForge was charged with criminal operating under the influence. LaForge filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop of his vehicle, arguing that the stop was not justified by an objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. The district court agreed and granted LaForge's motion. The Supreme Court vacated the suppression order, holding that, as matter of law based on the facts found by the motion judge, the stop of LaForge's vehicle by a police officer was justified based on an objectively reasonable articulable suspicion. Remanded for entry of an order denying the motion to suppress. View "State v. LaForge" on Justia Law

Following a joint jury trial, Jeffrey Williams was convicted of intentional or knowing murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Williams's convictions, holding (1) Williams was not denied a fair trial when the court denied his motion to sever the trial, or, in the alternative, to hold a joint trial but with a separate jury for each defendant; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting cross-examination of a cooperating witness regarding Williams's prior arrests; (3) certain comments by the prosecutor in relation to the cooperating witness did not constitute improper vouching; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to support Williams's convictions. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Darlene George was convicted of intentional or knowing murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying George's motion to suppress her grand jury testimony, as the use of the testimony at trial did not violate George's right against compulsory self-incrimination and the testimony was voluntary; (2) the court did not err in denying George's co-defendant's motion to sever the trial; (3) the indictment was sufficient; (4) the evidence was sufficient to support George's convictions; and (5) George's conviction was fundamentally fair and did not violate due process. View "State v. George " on Justia Law