Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Department of Health and Human Services petitioned for termination of Parents’ parental rights to their two minor children. After a hearing, the district court terminated both parents’ parental rights to the children. Shortly after the trial and one day after the entry of judgment, the trial judge resigned. The amended judgment on appeal was entered by a different judge. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Parents’ due process rights were not violated because the entry of the initial termination order was drafted by an assistant attorney general; (2) there was no error in the successor judge’s decision to enter an amended judgment instead of holding a new trial; and (3) the district court did not err in its determination that the termination of parental rights, rather than a permanency guardianship with the grandparents, was in the best interests of the children. View "In re C.P." on Justia Law

Defendants defaulted on their mortgage, and U.S. Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure. Following the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, the Bank filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the foreclosure action without prejudice, arguing that it could not proceed with the foreclosure because it did not have a mortgage assignment from the original lender and thus did not have standing to pursue the action. Defendants countered that the motion should be dismissed with prejudice so that they could be awarded attorney fees. The trial court granted the Bank’s motion but dismissed the case with prejudice. The court subsequently issued a correction of the record stating that the dismissal of the Bank’s action was without prejudice. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of dismissal with prejudice and subsequent judgment of dismissal without prejudice, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the Bank’s action with prejudice and did not have authority under the circumstances to change that outcome to a dismissal without prejudice. Remanded for the entry of judgment of dismissal without prejudice. View "U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Curit" on Justia Law

Plaintiff applied for abatement of real property taxes that the Town of Lebanon assessed against her property for the tax years 2011 through 2013. The Town denied the application on the basis that the taxes had been paid. After a de novo hearing, the York County Commissioners ultimately denied Plaintiff’s application for abatement for tax years 2011 and 2012 and remanded the matter for further action with respect to tax year 2013. The superior court affirmed the decision of the Commissioners with respect to the 2011 and 2012 tax years. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff failed to supply the Court with a complete and defined record of the evidence and arguments presented to the Commissioners, the Court could not review Plaintiff’s argument that the Commissioners were compelled to authorize an abatement. View "Penkul v. Town of Lebanon" on Justia Law

Kevin and Lisa Dube divorced pursuant to a final divorce judgment granting Lisa and Kevin shared parental rights and responsibilities of the parties’ daughter. Kevin appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment as to the spousal and child support awards and otherwise affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in setting Kevin’s rights of contact with his daughter; but (2) erred in finding that Kevin earns $175,000 per year, a finding underpinning both the spousal and the child support awards. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Dube v. Dube" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of failing to label an observation stand. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State was equitably estopped from prosecuting him because, when he purchased his hunting license, he was given a magazine endorsed by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) that misstated the law concerning tree stands. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to prove that IF&W made any misrepresentation in its publication that Defendant relied upon to his detriment, and therefore, the trial court correctly determined that the single source of controlling law was the statute duly enacted by the Legislature. View "State v. Austin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted murder and related crimes. Before trial, Defendant moved for a change of venue on the ground that the pretrial publicity surrounding the case was so prejudicial that selecting the jury would be “an exercise in futility.” The court deferred ruling on the motion before the jury was impaneled. The jury was subsequently impaneled, and Defendant did not renew his motion for change of venue at any point in the proceedings. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court did not err by declining to change the trial venue based on pretrial publicity, as there was no basis for the court to find that Defendant could not receive a fair trial in that venue; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. View "State v. Black" on Justia Law

In 2009, Mother and Father were divorced pursuant to a judgment of divorce that awarded Mother primary residence of the couple’s children and provided Father eight weeks of visitation with the children per year. In 2013, the district court modified the divorce judgment to provide for shared residence of the children. In 2014, Father again filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment and a motion for contempt. Thereafter, Mother requested a change of venue, which the district court granted. The court subsequently modified the divorce judgment by awarding Mother primary residence of the children and reducing Father’s visitation time. In addition, the court found Mother was in contempt for her refusal to comply with the terms of the 2013 order and granted Father’s request for attorney fees. The court declined to impose further sanctions on Mother. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) transferring this matter to a court where additional judicial resources were available; (2) modifying the divorce judgment; and (3) awarding attorney fees as a remedial sanction for Mother’s contempt and declining to impose additional sanctions. View "Hamlin v. Cavagnaro" on Justia Law

Carol Reece applied for a coastal sand dune permit to create a vehicle access way to her property abutting a beach and to develop and lawn and walkway on the property. The Department of Environmental Protection granted the permit. Abutting landowner Jonathan Day and others appealed. The Board of Environmental Protection reached a de novo decision granting Reece’s application. The superior court vacated the Board’s decision. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the superior court’s judgment, holding that the Board’s interpretations of its own ambiguous rules do not conflict with the relevant statutes or with the rules, and the rules do not compel at the interpretation reached by the superior court. Remanded for entry of a judgment affirming the Board’s decision to grant Reece the permit. View "Day v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Town of Eddington Planning Board and Board of Selectmen seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent a public vote on a moratorium on quarries and a declaration that any moratorium that might be approved was null, void, and of no legal effect because the town violated the open meeting requirements imposed by the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) during an executive session. The trial court entered a judgment for the Town, determining that the executive session, invoked for the purpose of consulting with counsel, had complied with the FOAA. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the moratorium should be declared null and void. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that the executive session complied with the conditions specified in the FOAA. View "Hughes Bros., Inc. v. Town of Eddington" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that a statement made by the prosecutor during closing argument constituted prosecutorial misconduct that deprived him of a fair trial, that the court’s jury instruction on self-defense was erroneous, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s statement did not constitute misconduct; (2) the court’s instructions were internally consistent and legally accurate; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Weaver" on Justia Law