Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2009, John Flynn joined the law firm of Daniel G. Lilley Law Office, P.A. (LLO). In 2011, Flynn left LLO to open his own practice. LLO and Daniel Lilley subsequently filed a complaint against Flynn seeking a judicial declaration that any contingency fees earned in cases that Flynn brought to LLO were the property of LLO to be distributed at Lilley’s sole discretion and seeking the return of such fees that Flynn had already received. Flynn counterclaimed. In 2012, the superior court denied LLO’s motion to consolidate this case with the closely-related cases at issue in Tucker v. Lilley. After a jury trial, the superior court entered judgment awarding Flynn unpaid salary from his tenure at LLO and apportioned attorney fees between the parties in cases that Flynn brought to LLO from his former law firm. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the superior court abused its discretion in declining to consolidate this case with the cases at issue in Tucker v. Lilley, as this case was an integral member of the set of cases that “must be resolved in one consolidated action before a single fact-finder.” Remanded with instructions to grant LLO’s motion to consolidate. View "Daniel G. Lilley Law Office, P.A. v. Flynn" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife were divorced in 2011 by a judgment of the district court that incorporated a settlement agreement. Based on that agreement, Husband was ordered to pay Wife spousal support In 2012, the court approved another agreed-upon order incorporating a second settlement agreement by the parties that reduced Husband’s spousal support obligation. In 2013, Husband filed a second motion to modify seeking to reduce or terminate his spousal support obligation. The court granted Husband’s motion in part by adjusting Husband’s spousal support award to accommodate for loss in property value of the marital home but otherwise declining to adjust the award. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) determining that the 2012 order, rather than the original divorce judgment, was the most recent final order; (2) finding no change in the parties financial circumstances except for the loss of the value in the house; and (3) declining to consider Wife’s earning capacity and related factors when it modified the support award. View "Gomberg v. Gomberg" on Justia Law

In 2012, Mother filed a motion to modify a parental rights and responsibilities order requesting recalculation of child support. By agreement, the district court reduced Mother’s child support obligation to $100 per week. Subsequently, following a hearing, the court issued an order that left in place Mother’s $100 weekly child support obligation. In 2015, Mother filed a notice of appeal, contending that the court miscalculated the child support due. The Supreme Court dismissed as untimely because it was not filed within twenty-one days after the docketing of the court’s additional findings. View "Flores v. Otis" on Justia Law

Child was born to Mother while Mother was married to Father. Father was not Child’s biological father. Mother and Father subsequently divorced. Father later filed a motion for determination of de facto parent status in both a child protection case and a post-judgment motion in the divorce action. The district court consolidated the motions for hearing and determined that C.L. was not a de facto parent for purposes of the child protection proceeding, nor was he a de facto parent for purposes of the family matter. Father appealed the district court’s judgment on both motions. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) dismissed the appeal from the child protection order because the appeal was interlocutory; and (2) affirmed the judgment in the family matter, as Father failed to establish the first element of de facto parenthood. View "C.L. v. L.L." on Justia Law

Father appealed the termination of his parental rights to his two children after the district court found, by clear and convincing evidence, all four statutory grounds of parental unfitness and that termination was in the children’s best interests so that they may be adopted. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it determined that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests without considering a potential permanency planning option not presented to the court; and (2) properly engaged in the statutorily required best interest analysis. View "In re J.I." on Justia Law

After a nonjury trial, the trial court convicted Defendant of operating while his license was suspended or revoked and sentenced him to thirty days in jail. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the laws of the “State of Maine” against him and that Maine’s law requiring each driver to hold a valid driver’s license is facially unconstitutional because it violates a purported fundamental right to travel. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) state jurisdiction over an individual extends to those present within the physical bounds of the state; and (2) the state may, as a valid exercise of its police power, place limitations on the operation of motor vehicles on the state’s roads. View "State v. Pelletier" on Justia Law

Brian Bailey filed a Me. R. Civ. P. 80C appeal from a decision of the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) setting Bailey’s 2014 elver fishing quota at four pounds. The basis for the quota was confirmed on March 31, 2014 by issuance of a 2014 elver transaction card. No appeal was filed within thirty days after Bailey’s receipt of the 2014 elver transaction card. After the close of the 2014 elver season on May 31, 2014, Bailey filed this appeal on July 10, 2014. The superior court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the issues in this case present an exception to the jurisprudence that would ordinarily require the Court to dismiss this appeal for mootness; and (2) DMR’s issuance of Bailey’s 2014 elver transaction card constituted a final agency action, and therefore, Bailey’s appeal was not timely filed. View "Bailey v. Dep’t of Marine Res." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of elevated aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced Appellant to serve twenty-two years in prison. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The superior court denied Appellant’s petition for post-conviction review, concluding that Appellant received “reasonably effective assistance” of counsel. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s attorney provided reasonably effective assistance as required by Strickland v. Washington. View "Manley v. State" on Justia Law

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP filed a complaint for foreclosure against Scott and Kristina Greenleaf. Bank of America, N.A. (the Bank) was substituted for BAC after the entities merged. After a trial, the court entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment based on the Bank’s lack of standing. On remand, the district court dismissed without prejudice the action due to the Bank’s standing defect. Scott appealed, arguing that the court was compelled to enter judgment in his favor because the Court vacated the Bank’s judgment after a completed trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the district court properly disposed of the case by entering a dismissal without prejudice. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf" on Justia Law

After almost five years of litigation, the probate court issued its final judgment in the formal testate proceeding concerning the estate of Mildred D. MacComb. James Richman appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court rejected Richman’s brief and his amended brief and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Richman asked that the Court reconsider the rejection of his amended brief and the dismissal of his appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court denied the motion for reconsideration, as Richman failed to comply with the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure and a direct order from the Court. View "In re Estate of MacComb" on Justia Law