Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court finding that the tortfeasor who injured Appellants in a motor vehicle accident was not an underinsured driver pursuant to Maine’s underinsured motorist (UM) statute, and therefore, there was no gap in coverage requiring State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to pay UM benefits under two policies issued to Appellants. The court held that because Appellants recovered far more from the tortfeasor’s insurers than the maximum amount of UM coverage provided by the State Farm policies, they surpassed the same recovery that would have been available had the tortfeasor been insured to the same extent. Therefore, there was no UM gap that State Farm was responsible to cover. View "Wallace v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The district court did not err in finding that Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) had met its burden of proof and by admitting PRA’s exhibits into evidence. The district court entered judgment in a small claims proceeding finding Max Bickford liable on debt that PRA had purchased from a prior creditor. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by finding that PRA had met its burden of proof to establish its ownership of Bickford’s debt; and (2) the district court did not err by admitting PRA’s affidavits into evidence where the affidavits and other documents fell within the general grant of admissibility created in Maine Rules of Small Claims Procedure rule 6(b) and where none of that rule’s grounds for exclusion applied in this case. View "Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Bickford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court denying Mark Gessner’s petition for release from the Riverview Psychiatric Center. On appeal, Gessner argued that the statute governing his opportunity for release from institutional inpatient residency, Me. Rev. Stat. 15, 104-A, was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. Because Gessner did not raise the vagueness issue to the trial court, the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed for obvious error. The court held (1) considering Gessner’s history of mental illness and violence and his refusal to acknowledge his mental illness or to participate in treatment, the statute’s terms were not unconstitutionally vague for purposes of addressing the individual circumstances at issue in this case; and (2) therefore, Gessner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the court committed obvious error. View "Gessner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Brian Beaulieu Jr. liable to Greg and Victoria Goodwill for having made fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations about certain amenities in a house that he sold to them and awarding damages. On appeal, Beaulieu asserted that, pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 163, he was entitled to a setoff against the amount of damages he was ordered to pay based on the Goodwills’ settlement with the real estate agency that listed his house. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the district court did not err by declining to reduce the damage award by the amount of the settlement between the Goodwills and the real estate agency that listed Beaulieu’s house because Beaulieu was not entitled to the setoff as a matter of law. View "Goodwill v. Beaulieu" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to Skyler, Rosalee, and Austin, and Father’s parental rights to Rosalee and Austin pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii). The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents were unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs, that they were unable to protect the children from jeopardy and that those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs, and that termination of Parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Parents’ parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in each child’s best interest. View "In re Skyler F." on Justia Law

Arthur Murdock, a police officer, was attempting to cut across two eastbound lanes of traffic and into a parking lot when his police cruiser was struck by another vehicle traveling in the outside eastbound lane from behind where Martin Thorne’s car was stopped in traffic. Murdock filed a four-count complaint alleging, as relevant to this appeal, negligence claims against Thorne and underinsured motorist (UM) claims against his employer, the Maine department of Public Safety (DPS). The superior court granted summary judgment for DPS and Thorne. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) because Murdock failed to make a prima facie showing that Thorne’s “wave-on” gesture was the proximate cause of his injuries, Thorne was entitled to summary judgment on Murdock’s negligence claim; and (2) because Murdock’s UM claim against DPS was predicated upon his negligence claim against Thorne, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of DPS. View "Murdock v. Thorne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to Child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2) and the denial of Father’s motion for a new trial or for reconsideration. On appeal, Father argued that the court deprived him of due process by terminating his parental rights even though he was not present at the final termination hearing and by failing to grant his motion for a new trial or provide him with an alternative opportunity to be heard when he later told the court that he had not attended the hearing due to transportation problems. The Supreme Judicial Court held that Father’s failure to explain how his participation in the trial would have affected the court’s determinations that he was parentally unfit and that termination was in the child’s best interest, and therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Father’s motion for a new trial or for reconsideration. View "In re Kaylianna C." on Justia Law

The district court did not err in finding jeopardy as to both Mother and Father and ordering that Child be placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4036(1)(F). The court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that as to both parents, Child was in circumstances of jeopardy to her health and welfare. Mother did not challenge the finding of jeopardy as to her. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) a dispositional order of custody is not appealable; and (2) the court’s finding that Child was more likely than not in circumstances of jeopardy in Father’s care was supported by competent record evidence. View "In re Kaliyah B." on Justia Law

The district court did not err in terminating Parents’ parental rights to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(B)(2). Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the district court’s factual findings that Parents were unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs were supported by competent evidence in the record and were therefore not clearly erroneous. In regard to Mother, it was not a violation of due process for the court to make an explicit finding concerning her parental unfitness in an amended order without first holding a new hearing because Mother fully participated in the hearing from which the facts underlying the court’s legal judgment were derived. View "In re Gabriel W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court declaring the ownership of and easement rights to certain property on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that he owned title to certain lakefront property and that any easement rights Defendants once may have had to that property had been extinguished. The superior court concluded that, except for a limited area where a structure had been built, Defendants’ express easement to the property had not been extinguished where Plaintiff failed to prove Defendants’ abandonment of the easement and where Plaintiff failed to establish that he possessed the easement “under a claim of right.” The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the lower court, holding that Defendants’ express easement to the property had not been extinguished either by abandonment or by adverse possession. View "Dupuis v. Ellingwood" on Justia Law