Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The superior court entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion or committed legal or factual error in several respects. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding that because Defendant’s filings to the Court complied with neither the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure nor the Court’s specific orders to him, Defendant failed to comply with Me. R. App. P. 8, which appellants must adhere to in order to receive proper appellate review. View "Major v. Chiang" on Justia Law

After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his two children. Father appealed, arguing that the court’s denial of his motion to continue improperly deprived him of his right to counsel pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4005(2) because “he was not provided adequate time to speak and confer with his attorney prior to the hearing.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion to continue; and (2) competent evidence in the record supported the court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, failure to make a good faith effort to reunify with the children, and that termination was in the best interests of the children. View "In re J.B." on Justia Law

After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his three children after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father was unfit and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not fail to critically assess the evidence before it, and there was clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding of at least one ground of parental unfitness; and (2) there was ample evidence in the record that termination of Father’s rights was in the children’s best interest. View "In re D.C." on Justia Law

Between 2002 and 2008, Defendants applied for, were found qualified for, and lived in Section 8 housing, for which the local housing authority paid a substantial rent subsidy to the landlord. Throughout this time, Defendants earned income far in excess of the maximum that would qualify them for Section 8 housing assistance. Defendants were eventually convicted of theft by deception. Defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence as business records certain forms on which Defendants had provided financial information. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the forms into evidence. View "State v. Abdi" on Justia Law

In this “cold case,” Defendant was charged with a murder committed fifteen years before the trial. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of intentional or knowing murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting prior consistent statements of Defendant’s son; and (2) the court abused its discretion in precluding Defendant from presenting certain evidence of Defendant’s son’s involvement with the murder to support an alternative suspect defense, as the court’s application of alternative suspect jurisprudence reflected a misapprehension of the concept, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Jamie" on Justia Law

James Stanley, Barbara Stanley and Northeast Marine Services, Inc. (collectively, “Stanley”) were parties to a binding arbitration with Michael Liberty and five corporations under his control (“the Liberty corporate entities”) regarding contractual and fiduciary disputes arising from Stanley’s tenure as an officer and director of the Liberty corporate entities. Many of Stanley’s claims were rejected, but the three main issues relevant to this appeal were decided in favor of Stanley. The business and consumer docket affirmed the arbitration award in full. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in challenging the arbitrator’s findings that Stanley had not engaged in a breach of fiduciary duty regarding transactions involving the Liberty corporate corporate entities, Liberty and the Liberty corporate entities asked the court to review fact-findings by the arbitrator, and such findings were not reviewable; (2) Liberty and the Liberty corporate entities did not demonstrate that the arbitrator exceeded his broad authority in interpreting the retirement contract that generated this litigation; and (3) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by deciding to pierce the corporate veil and make Liberty personally liable for obligations of his closely-controlled corporations. View "Stanley v. Liberty" on Justia Law

After a termination hearing at which Father failed to appear, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his child. Father appealed the termination order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court correctly found that at least one ground of parental unfitness was proved by clear and convincing evidence; (2) ample evidence in the record supported the conclusion that termination of Father’s rights was in the child’s best interest; and (3) because Father received advance notice of the hearing and chose not to appear, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Father’s attorney’s motion to continue the termination hearing until Father could attend. View "In re T.C." on Justia Law

In this bankruptcy case, Bank of America obtained a junior foreclosure judgment and received the Debtor’s equity of redemption for a senior mortgage. Bank of America did not sell this interest within the specified time period, nor did it appear in the senior foreclosure to assert its interest in redeeming the senior mortgage within the redemption period. Peoples United Bank, the holder of the senior mortgage, then filed a foreclosure complaint. Bank of America and the Debtor failed to appear in the action and were defaulted. Thereafter, Peoples United was granted a foreclosure judgment. Bank of America was not named as a distributee in the resulting judgment. Bank of America subsequently purchased Peoples United’s interest in the Debtor’s senior mortgage debt, and Peoples United postponed the foreclosure sale. Bank of America successfully moved to substitute itself in place of Peoples United as the plaintiff in the senior foreclosure. The Trustee then moved to sell the premises free of liens, interests, and encumbrances. Bank of America objected. The bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of Bank of America. The federal district court disagreed with the bankruptcy court and certified an unsettled state law question to the Maine Supreme Court. The Court answered that Bank of America, who failed to appear in the senior foreclosure and was not named as a distributee in the resulting judgment, did not have any rights to the excess proceeds from that foreclosure sale. View "Bankruptcy Estate of Everest v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) although the jury should have received complete instructions before beginning deliberations, Defendant was not unfairly prejudiced when the trial court provided additional jury instructions, after the jury had already begun deliberations, regarding an alternative means of proving aggravated assault as a lesser included offense of the charged crime of elevated aggravated assault; and (2) the trial court did not err by refusing to give a requested jury instruction on self-defense, as the evidence did not generate a self-defense instruction. View "State v. Delano" on Justia Law

In 2007, Amy Chartier executed a promissory note, and as security, Amy and her husband, Ronald, executed a mortgage encumbering their residential property. The note and mortgage were eventually assigned to CitiMortgage, Inc. In 2010, CitiMortgage filed a complaint alleging that Amy was in default and seeking foreclosure of the mortgage. In their answer, the Chartiers alleged that CitiMortgage failed to provide a notice of default and right to cure as required by the mortgage. After a non-jury trial, the district court entered a judgment of foreclosure for CitiMortgage, concluding that the notice of default complied with the terms of the mortgage. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the district court erred in entering judgment against the Chartiers because the notice of default provided by CitiMortgage did not comply with the conditions in the mortgage instrument. View "CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Chartier" on Justia Law