Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a construction company, perfected a mechanic’s lien on Defendants’ property and filed a five-count complaint alleging that Defendants breached a contract with Plaintiff to renovate their house by failing to make any payments. The superior court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on its breach of contract, Prompt Payment Act, and mechanic’s lien claims. Defendants filed a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 59, arguing that there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to the time and manner of payment. The court denied the motion and later dismissed the remaining counts of Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants appealed, arguing that Plaintiff could not succeed on any of its claims because the parties’ oral contract was unenforceable pursuant to the Home Construction Contracts Act. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Defendants failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. View "Warren Constr. Group, LLC v. Reis" on Justia Law

John Dyer gave a promissory note and a mortgage on property securing the note to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. The mortgage contained language naming Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as lender’s nominee. The Bank of New York later filed a complaint for foreclosure, asserting that Dyer had stopped making payments on the note and that he owed the Bank over $1 million. During the trial, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss its complaint without prejudice on the ground that it did not have the requisite standing to pursue its claim. Dyer filed an objection requesting that any dismissal be with prejudice and that he be awarded his attorney fees and costs. The district court granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and declined to award additional attorney fees or costs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint without prejudice and in declining to award Dyer his full attorney fees and costs. View "Bank of New York v. Dyer" on Justia Law

A Deputy of the Department of Labor, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation determined that Plaintiff had been overpaid $13,157 in unemployment insurance benefits and was required to reimburse the Bureau in that amount. Nearly one year after the expiration of the appeal period Plaintiff appealed the Department’s decision. The Department of Labor, Division of Administrative Hearings dismissed the appeal as untimely. On appeal, the Unemployment Insurance Commission remanded the matter to the Division to develop an evidentiary record on the timeliness of Plaintiff’s appeal and the merits of her appeal. On remand, the Division developed the record and submitted the record to the Commission for decision. The Commission concluded that Plaintiff’s appeal to the Division was untimely. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Commissioner correctly concluded that the Deputy’s decision had become final and that it was without jurisdiction to address the merits of her untimely appeal. View "Ramelli v. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of domestic violence assault with prior convictions. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of domestic violence assault. Specifically, Defendant argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable double that he and the victim were “sexual partners,” which is an element of the offense. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Defendant and the victim were or had been “sexual partners,” and thus were “family or household members,” which is an element of the offense. View "State v. Murphy" on Justia Law

In 2014, Husband and Wife were divorced pursuant to a divorce judgment that incorporated the terms of a mutual agreement between the properties. In 2015, Wife filed a motion to enforce a provision of the judgment requiring the sale of certain real property in a commercially reasonable manner. At the conclusion of a hearing, the district court granted Wife’s motion to enforce. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Husband’s motion for a continuance; (2) the court properly granted a motion for an expedited hearing; and (3) sufficient evidence in the record supported the court’s finding that the sale of the real property was commercially reasonable. View "Hero v. Macomber" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were the parents of a child born in 2012. In 2014, Father brought this action seeking a determination of their parental rights and responsibilities. After a hearing, the district court ordered Father to pay weekly child support in the amount of $173. Thereafter, Father filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law requesting that the court issue findings and conclusions on the amount of both parties’ income and the amount of childcare expenses used to calculate his child support obligation. The court denied Father’s motion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment addressing child support, holding that the district court erred in denying Father’s motion because the judgment did not include findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the applicable elements of the child support calculation. Remanded. View "Dumas v. Milotte" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the third petition brought by the Department of Health and Human Services to terminate the parental rights of Parents to their two sons. The court denied two prior petitions. After a hearing on the third petition, the court terminated Parents’ parental rights, finding that Parents were unable to protect the children from jeopardy and that the circumstances were unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The court also determined that termination was in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the record supported the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its determination that termination was in each child’s best interest. View "In re G.T." on Justia Law

In 2014, the trial court terminated Father’s rights to his child after finding all four grounds of parental unfitness. Father moved for a new trial and to set aside the termination judgment. The trial court denied the motions. Father appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding of one ground of parental unfitness and arguing that the court and all persons and entities involved in his case demonstrated prejudice against him based on his national origin and immigration status. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings of parental unfitness on the ground of Father’s unwillingness or inability to protect the child from jeopardy; and (2) the record was devoid of any prejudice argued by Petitioner. View "In re M.E." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to forty-two years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence an audio recording of Defendant’s interview with a police detective, as its admission did not violate Me. R. Evid. 802 and 403, did not allow improper prosecutorial vouching, and did not result in prejudice; and (2) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence that Defendant had assaulted the victim hours before she was killed, as the evidence’s admission did not violate Rule 403, and the court’s limiting instruction was sufficient to satisfy Mont. R. Evid. 404(b). View "State v. Pratt" on Justia Law

In 2012, Plaintiff, a church located in Portland, filed a complaint seeking a state court judgment based on a bankruptcy court judgment that it obtained in 1985, under a former name, against Defendant. During the pendency of the state court action, Plaintiff also moved for a writ of execution on the original bankruptcy judgment. Defendant counterclaimed against Plaintiff and its pastor. The district court issued an order directing the issuance of a writ and then granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Plaintiff on both its complaint and Defendant’s counterclaim. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the execution order and the judgment, holding (1) the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint seeking a judgment on the bankruptcy court judgment; but (2) the district court erred by ordering that an execution issue, granting judgment on the pleadings, and dismissing Defendant’s claims against Plaintiff’s pastor. View "Faith Temple v. DiPietro" on Justia Law