Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In 2012, the district court issued a judgment establishing shared parental rights and responsibilities and shared primary physical residence of the child of Flint Hutchinson and Christina Bruyere. One year later, Hutchinson filed a motion to modify and a motion for contempt, asserting that Bruyere violated the judgment. The court granted Hutchinson’s motions in part and denied them in part. Hutchinson appealed, arguing that the record did not support the court’s decision on his motions and that his attorney did not adequately represent him at the motion hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of Hutchinson’s arguments because Hutchinson failed to comply with the basic requirements applicable to the submission of a proper record and index. View "Hutchinson v. Bruyere" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of unlawful contact as a Class B offense and five counts of unlawful sexual contact as a Class C offense. During the trial, the prosecutor noticed that although Count IX purported to charge Defendant with a Class B offense based on the victim’s age, the time frame included in the portion of the indictment that described Count IX actually alleged that the victim had been twelve or thirteen years old on the relevant dates. The court subsequently allowed the State to amend the indictment to reduce the offense to a Class C unlawful sexual contact. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in permitting the State to amend Count IX of the indictment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as amended to correct a scrivener’s error, holding that the trial court did not err in granting the State’s motion to amend the indictment. View "State v. Thornton" on Justia Law

In 2011, Grandparents filed a petition to establish visitation rights with their grandson. The district court entered an order setting out a visitation schedule. In 2014, Grandparents filed a motion to modify the grandparent visitation order after Mother and Father moved to Kentucky. Mother opposed the motion to modify, and all parties requested attorney fees. The district court dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction and ordered Grandparents to pay Mother’s reasonable attorney fees and costs. Grandparents appealed, arguing that the court erred in awarding attorney fees without providing them “an opportunity for hearing.” The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded because the record did not show that the parties were afforded the statutorily required opportunity to be heard on the issue of attorney fees. View "True v. Harmon" on Justia Law