Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The dispute in this case involved the continuing existence, scope, and extent of easements over two roads leading to the beach or ocean in Kennebunk. In the Supreme Court’s opinion issued on the first appeal, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was vacated in part and remanded for consideration of issues the court had not reached related to the continued existence or abandonment of the easements. On remanded, instead of presenting evidence or testimony for trial, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Helen Rose and Nathaniel Merrill on their claim for declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that because there were several genuine issues of material fact in dispute in this case, summary judgment was not appropriate. Remanded. View "Rose v. Parsons" on Justia Law

When Mason Station, LLC failed to pay assessed property taxes on multiple properties in the Town of Wiscasset, the Town filed a complaint against Mason Station for taxes owed on those properties and on certain personal property. Mason Station failed to timely file an answer, and the clerk entered a default and default judgment against Mason Station. Nearly eighteen months after the judgment was entered, Mason Station moved to set aside the default and for relief from default judgment, alleging that several days before the entry of the default judgment in favor of the Town, the Town had obtained ownership of the properties for which taxes were owed through automatic foreclosure and that the foreclosed properties had an assessed value in excess of the total amount owed on the judgment. The trial court declined to grant Mason Station relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of the motions to set aside default and for relief from judgment, as Mason Station offered no good excuse for failing to file a timely answer to the Town’s complaint and failed to perform its duty to take legal steps to protect its own interests in the original litigation. View "Town of Wiscasset v. Mason Station, LLC" on Justia Law

Robert and Carol Rice filed a complaint against their neighbors, James and Carol Cook, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract regarding the parties’ shared boundary line and seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The Cooks counterclaimed, seeking similar relief. After a jury-waived trial, the court entered judgment in favor of the Cooks and granted injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err in (1) finding that the parties never reached an agreement regarding their common boundary line; (2) finding that the Rices’ fences were “unnecessarily high” or “unreasonably interfered” with the Cooks’ use and enjoyment of their property pursuant to a common law theory of nuisance; and (3) enjoining the Rices from building a fence of any height along a portion of their boundary with the Cooks based on its determination that the Rices built their fences with the intent to annoy the Cooks and to interfere with the Cooks’ use of their property. View "Rice v. Cook" on Justia Law

Wayne and Michelle McClellan applied for a conditional use permit to build a disc-golf course in the City of Saco on property abutting a campground owned by Fred Fitanides. The Saco Planning Board voted to grant conditional approval for the project and issued the conditional use permits. The Saco Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) affirmed the Planning Board’s decision. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the Planning Board issued the permits in compliance with the City of Saco Zoning Ordinance; and (2) Fitanides was not prejudiced by any procedural irregularities in the administrative process. View "Fitanides v. City of Saco" on Justia Law

The superior court entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion or committed legal or factual error in several respects. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding that because Defendant’s filings to the Court complied with neither the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure nor the Court’s specific orders to him, Defendant failed to comply with Me. R. App. P. 8, which appellants must adhere to in order to receive proper appellate review. View "Major v. Chiang" on Justia Law

In this bankruptcy case, Bank of America obtained a junior foreclosure judgment and received the Debtor’s equity of redemption for a senior mortgage. Bank of America did not sell this interest within the specified time period, nor did it appear in the senior foreclosure to assert its interest in redeeming the senior mortgage within the redemption period. Peoples United Bank, the holder of the senior mortgage, then filed a foreclosure complaint. Bank of America and the Debtor failed to appear in the action and were defaulted. Thereafter, Peoples United was granted a foreclosure judgment. Bank of America was not named as a distributee in the resulting judgment. Bank of America subsequently purchased Peoples United’s interest in the Debtor’s senior mortgage debt, and Peoples United postponed the foreclosure sale. Bank of America successfully moved to substitute itself in place of Peoples United as the plaintiff in the senior foreclosure. The Trustee then moved to sell the premises free of liens, interests, and encumbrances. Bank of America objected. The bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of Bank of America. The federal district court disagreed with the bankruptcy court and certified an unsettled state law question to the Maine Supreme Court. The Court answered that Bank of America, who failed to appear in the senior foreclosure and was not named as a distributee in the resulting judgment, did not have any rights to the excess proceeds from that foreclosure sale. View "Bankruptcy Estate of Everest v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

In 2007, Amy Chartier executed a promissory note, and as security, Amy and her husband, Ronald, executed a mortgage encumbering their residential property. The note and mortgage were eventually assigned to CitiMortgage, Inc. In 2010, CitiMortgage filed a complaint alleging that Amy was in default and seeking foreclosure of the mortgage. In their answer, the Chartiers alleged that CitiMortgage failed to provide a notice of default and right to cure as required by the mortgage. After a non-jury trial, the district court entered a judgment of foreclosure for CitiMortgage, concluding that the notice of default complied with the terms of the mortgage. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the district court erred in entering judgment against the Chartiers because the notice of default provided by CitiMortgage did not comply with the conditions in the mortgage instrument. View "CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Chartier" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was two adjacent beachfront lots - lot 113 and lot 114. In 1989, as a result of a merger clause in a zoning ordnance, the lots were merged into a single, nonconforming, grandfathered lot. Despite the merger clause’s prohibition of any separation of a merged lot that would result in an area that did not meet minimum lot-size requirements, the owner separated the lots and conveyed them to two different individuals. Carol Reece acquired lot 113. In 2013, Plaintiff, who owned property abutting lot 113, sought a declaratory judgment that lot 113 was not a grandfathered nonconforming lot. Reece subsequently acquired lot 114. The superior court granted summary judgment for Reece. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that Reece’s recombination of lots 113 and 114 did not effect a resurrection of the grandfathered status that the lots had when they were previously merged. View "Day v. Town of Phippsburg" on Justia Law

In May 2010, the Bar Harbor Appeals Board issued two decisions requiring the Bar Harbor Planning Board to approve a site plan for construction of a hotel on land abutting land owned by the Witham Family Limited Partnership in Bar Harbor. Witham filed a complaint challenging both decisions. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s judgment dismissing the complaint and remanded. Also in May 2010, on remand from the Appeals Board, the Planning Board issued a decision containing new findings and approving of the proposed site plan. No appeal was taken from this decision. In May 2012, the Planning Board approved of an amended site plan. Witham did not appeal from the May 2012 decision or the issuance of any building permits or other permits. In October 2013, on remand from the Supreme Court, the Business and Consumer Docket justice affirmed the Planning Board’s determinations. Witham appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because Witham did not appeal from the Planning Board’s May 2010 decision approving the proposed site plan or the Planning Board’s May 2012 approval of an amended site plan and because the hotel was now fully operational. View "Witham Family Ltd. P’ship v. Town of Bar Harbor" on Justia Law

When the father of Daniel Albert and Carlton Albert died, the father’s company was left in trust for the benefit of Daniel and Carlton. In 1984, Daniel bought the land from company and later conveyed it to Carlton in exchange for Carlton’s shares in the company. In 1992, Daniel purchased the land from Carlton and, in turn, released Carlton from his debt on a loan Daniel had previously extended to him. In 2010, Carlton commenced this action seeking imposition of a constructive trust on the land, alleging that, at the time of the 1992 land transfer, Daniel breached a confidential relationship existing between them. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err (1) in finding that Daniel and Carlton did not have a confidential relationship at the time of the land conveyance; and (2) in concluding, alternatively, that even if a confidential relationship did exist, the 1992 land transaction was free of any undue influence affecting Carlton’s interests. View "Albert v. Albert" on Justia Law