Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The superior court determined that Appellants were liable for certain charges beyond undisputed amounts of principal and interest owed pursuant to a promissory note owned by Appellee. The note had been secured by a mortgage but an assignment failed to convey to Appellee all of the rights created by the mortgage. “[T]o avoid unjust enrichment,” the judgment allowed Appellee to retain the entire disputed amount. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in part because the trial court did not sufficiently distinguish which charges were obligations pursuant to the note and which charges were obligations only pursuant to the invalid mortgage. The court remanded the case for a determination of what amount, if any, Appellee may retain pursuant to the note. View "Knope v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

Donald Williams appealed a divorce judgment dissolving his marriage to Linda Williams. During the pendency of the appeal, Linda withdrew $8,100 in interim spousal support payments from the escrow account, which had been set aside to Linda in the divorce judgment. The parties later voluntarily dismissed the appeal. Linda filed a motion for post-judgment relief seeking the recovery of the money she had withdrawn from the escrow account during the appeal. The court granted Linda’s request and awarded her $8,100. The court then granted her $6,000 in attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) a general release signed by Linda in anticipation of the dismissal of the appeal relieved Donald of any obligation to compensate Linda for the interim spousal support payments because they were directly associated with the appeal; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Linda. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

Mother appealed from a judgment of the district court terminating her parental rights to her child. Mother’s parental rights were terminated largely due to her chronic substance abuse and mental health issues. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s findings indicating that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and take responsibility for the child in a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in the child’s best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights. View "In re Mya E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for one count of intentional or knowing or depraved indifference murder following a jury trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and error in admitting evidence of prior bad acts. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the prosecutor’s remarks during opening statements did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; and (2) the trial court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior assault of the victim. View "State v. Pillsbury" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (1)(B)(2). Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court’s findings were supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) the district court adequately explained how Mother abandoned the child and how she failed to alleviate jeopardy, to engage in reunification services, and to protect the child in a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights and adoption were in the child’s best interest. View "In re Tacoma M." on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court clarified the process for the handling of special motions to dismiss on anti-SLAPP grounds to require fact-finding by an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, each of the elements for opposing the dismissal for which the plaintiff successfully made out a prima facie case that the defendant’s petitioning activity was devoid of reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law and that the defendant’s petitioning activity caused actual injury to the plaintiff. In the instant case, the trial court denied Defendant’s special motion to dismiss on anti-SLAPP grounds after a nontestimonial hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the superior court for it to reconsider Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss according to the procedure and standards set forth herein. View "Gaudette v. Davis" on Justia Law

At issue before the Supreme Judicial Court in this case was whether Mainely Media, LLC’s publication of newspaper articles constituted “petitioning activity” within the meaning of Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mainely Media’s special motion to dismiss, holding (1) the anti-SLAPP statute is not applicable to newspaper articles unless the newspaper is petitioning on its own behalf or unless the party seeking to invoke the anti-SLAPP statute is a party that used the newspaper to broadcast the party’s own petitioning activities; and (2) accordingly, the articles at issue on appeal did not constitute petitioning activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute. View "Gaudette v. Mainely Media, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the termination of the parental rights of Mother to two of her children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (1)(B)(2) due to the gross sexual assault committed by Mother against her oldest daughter. Mother was sentenced to a term of years for the gross sexual assault. The Court held that the district court adequately explained how Mother failed to alleviate jeopardy, failed to engage in rehabilitative services, and failed to protect the children or be available to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. View "In re Mariah Y." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father due to persistent concerns about the child’s basic health and safety, the parents’ inability to understand and respond to the child’s needs, Mother’s intellectual limitations, Father’s violence, and the parents’ history of substance abuse. Specifically, the Court held (1) there was competent evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of one or more grounds of parental unfitness as to each parent; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of each parent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Daniel H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2), holding (1) there was competent evidence in the record to support the district court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother and Father were unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; and (2) the court did not err or abuse its discretion by determining that the best interest of the child was served by terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father. View "In re Jesse B." on Justia Law