Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Town of Westport Island issued a building permit to George Richardson to build a single-family residence on his property. Abutting landowner Deirdre Dunlop filed a notice of appeal, and the Westport Island board of appeals (Board) affirmed the issuance of the permit. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the issuance of the building permit, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that Richardon's property met minimum lot-size requirement for construction of a residential dwelling; and (2) the Board correctly determined that Richardson's road lot could be included in his property's acreage calculation. View "Dunlop v. Town of Westport Island " on Justia Law

Husband and Wife divorced in 1989 pursuant to a divorce judgment that incorporated an agreement dividing the parties' property. Husband retired from the Air National Guard in 2002 and began collecting his retirement benefits in 2006. In 2010, Wife filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment, requesting that the district court specify the amount of Husband's military pension to which she was entitled. The court granted the motion and awarded a portion of Husband's benefits to Wife after concluding that the provision of the divorce judgment regarding Husband's military pension was ambiguous. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the provision awarding Husband his military pension was unambiguous and that Wife's motion to modify was improperly granted. Remanded. View "Burnell v. Burnell" on Justia Law

Anthem Health Plans of Maine appealed from a judgment entered in the Business and Consumer Docket affirming a decision by the Superintendent of Insurance (1) determining that Anthem's proposed rate increase for its individual health insurance products was excessive and unfairly discriminatory, and (2) indicating that an average rate increase with a lower profit margin for those products would be approved. Anthem appealed, contending that the Superintendent's decision violated Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 24-A, 2736 (the statute) and the state and federal Constitutions because the approved rate increase eliminated Anthem's opportunity to earn a reasonable profit on its line of individual health insurance products. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Superintendent properly balanced the competing interests within the statutory framework of the statute in arriving at its approved rate increase; and (2) because the approved rate provided a built-in risk and profit margin, Anthem's argument that the Superintendent improperly cross-subsidized between Anthem's regulated and unregulated product lines, and the corollary argument that the approved rate resulted in an unconstitutional confiscatory taking, necessarily failed as a matter of law. View "Anthem Health Plans of Me., Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins." on Justia Law

Following a nonjury trial, James Soucy was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants (OUI) with one previous OUI conviction within a ten-year period. Soucy appealed, arguing that the evidence of impairment from his use of prescription drugs was insufficient to convict him of OUI. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because there was sufficient evidence in the record for the district court to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, while operating his motor vehicle, Soucy was impaired, to some extent, by his consumption of prescription drugs, the district court did not err in its judgment. View "State v. Soucy" on Justia Law

Robert Laux and Cynthia Moran-Laux (collectively Laux) appealed, and Ralph Harrington cross-appealed, from a judgment of the superior court declaring the continued existence and location of a road easement in favor of Harrington over Laux's property and awarding Harrington nominal damages for Laux's interference with the use of the easement. Laux asserted that a 1990 quitclaim deed given by Harrington's predecessor-in-title to Laux's predecessor-in-title extinguished the easement, or, alternatively, that construction on the site of its original entry point resulted in its abandonment. Harrington contended that the court erred in excluding certain evidence at trial, resulting in its miscalculation of his damages and failure to award punitive damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding, inter alia, that the superior court did not err in (1) finding that the 1990 quitclaim deed was not intended to release Harrington's easement over the land now owned by the Lauxes; (2) concluding that Harrington did not abandon his easement; (3) calculating damages; and (4) finding that Laux's conduct did not rise to the level of actual ill will or outrageousness required to award punitive damages. View "Laux v. Harrington " on Justia Law

Husband and Wife divorced pursuant to a divorce judgment entered in the district court. The judgment awarded shared primary residence of the parties' two children and ordered Husband to pay child support. Husband appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of two of his expert witnesses and in quashing his subpoena of another witness. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that Husband did not identify that the trial court committed error, as the appeal lacked an adequate record, and Husband did not establish that the trial court showed actual error in the judgment. Remanded for the trial court to address the cost of the appeal, including reasonable attorney fees. View "Greaton v. Greaton" on Justia Law

John and Paul Pelletier formed St. Sauveur Development in the 1970s and transferred title of several jointly-owned properties to the corporation. In 2002, an appraiser appraised the corporation's property holdings. After the appraisal, the brothers agreed to divide the properties and how they would be divided, with the understanding that John would make a cash payment to Paul to equalize the division. In 2004, John began making payments to Paul. In 2005, the brothers received an analysis from Paul's accountant that they agreed on the actual amount of Paul's payment and to the payment terms, including the interest rate. Paul subsequently filed a complaint for dissolution and other relief. The business and consumer docket determined and divided John's and Paul's interests in St. Sauveur, concluding that the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement in 2002. The Supreme Court vacated in part, holding (1) the agreement regarding interest was reached in 2005, and therefore, the court's determination that interest should accrue from the date of the 2002 appraisal was error; and (2) the court did not err in failing to find that a check from St. Sauveur that Paul negotiated in 2009 gave rise to an accord and satisfaction. Remanded. View "Pelletier v. Pelletier" on Justia Law

Chad Gurney was convicted of murder and arson following a jury-waived trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the court did not err in (1) denying Gurney's motions to suppress evidence found on his Facebook account, laptop computer, and cell phone; (2) admitting evidence of a reference to a beheading video found in unallocated space on the hard drive of Gurney's laptop computer; (3) not addressing in its findings the journals and emails that Gurney offered as evidence of his preexisting and ongoing psychosis; and (4) finding that Gurney did not carry his burden of proving that he suffered from a mental disease or defect that substantially affected his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. View "State v. Gurney" on Justia Law

Mallory McPartland appealed from a judgment of conviction entered in the criminal docket upon her conditional guilty plea to operating under the influence (OUI) following the denial of her motion to suppress evidence. McPartland argued that the suppression court erred in concluding that the police officer she encountered at an OUI roadblock had a reasonable articulable suspicion of impairment that was sufficient to justify additional sobriety screening. The Supreme Court affirmed the suppression court's finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to refer McPartland to secondary screening in this case, holding that the court correctly concluded that satisfaction of the reasonable articulable suspicion standard justifies directing a motorist to secondary screening following an initial roadblock stop. View "State v. McPartland" on Justia Law

Mrs. T. was the mother of C.T., a fifteen-year-old boy with severe disabilities. At issue in this case was C.T.'s eligibility for the Department of Health and Human Services' home and community-based waiver program. C.T. was approved for the waiver program but was not receiving services under the waiver when the Department instituted a new regulation that closed the program to children but grandfathered children who were already receiving services. Mrs. T. subsequently filed a grievance with the Department seeking to have C.T. declared waiver-eligible. The Commissioner of the Department accepted the recommendation of an administrative hearing officer that denied the grievance. The superior court affirmed. Mrs. T. appealed, contending that the Department was equitably estopped from denying services because she reasonably relied to her detriment on misinformation she received that C.T. was eligible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Mrs. T. did not meet her burden to prove that her reliance on the misinformation given to her by the Department caused any detriment to C.T., the hearing officer did not err in finding that the Department was not equitably estopped from declaring C.T. ineligible for a waiver. View "Mrs. T. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law