Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the divorce judgment of the district court, holding that the district court erred in calculating past and future child support.On appeal, Father argued that the district court erroneously failed to account for changes in the parties' incomes and child care costs and to provide him with a downward deviation from child support guidelines and further erred in calculating his future child support obligation by excluding his child care costs. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the court's child support order and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred in its award of both past and future child support. View "McCarthy v. Guber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on charges of domestic violence aggravated assault and domestic violence assault and the trial court's finding of guilty on a charge of violating a condition of release, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a representative jury by using the absolute disparity test to determine the racial makeup of the jury venire. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) appropriately determined the 1.01% absolute disparity in Defendant's jury venire was insufficient to show underrepresentation; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to subpoena the grand jurors. View "State v. Footman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court acquitting Defendant of eluding an officer after a jury found him guilty of that offense and two misdemeanors, holding that the evidence rationally supported the jury's verdict.The jury returned a verdict finding Defendant guilty of all three charges for which he was indicted. Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on the charge of eluding an officer, arguing that his speed was not reckless under the circumstances. The court granted the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of acquittal, holding that the jury could rationally find that Defendant operated at a "reckless rate of speed" - a required element of eluding an officer. View "State v. Brackett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court allocating parental rights regarding the parties' child in this case, granting primary residence to Kyla Estes and defining rights of contact to Nicholas Capelety, holding that any error in the proceedings below was harmless.Capelety, who had a child with Estes, filed a complaint for determination of parentage, parental rights and responsibilities, and child support. Following a trial, the court issued a judgment determining parental rights and responsibilities. Capelety appealed, raising four assignments of error. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that even if the court abused its discretion in enforcing the limits controlling the order and timing of presentation of evidence in this case, it was highly probable that the court's enforcement of the time limits did not affect the judgment. View "Capelety v. Estes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the district court (1) did not err when it found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents were unfit as parents and that the Department of Health and Human Services failed to meet its statutory obligations pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4041(1-A)(A); and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it found that termination of Parents' parental rights, rather than establishing a permanency guardianship, was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Children of Quincy A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of the City of Sanford following a jury trial on Plaintiff's complaint alleging that the City discriminated against him because of his disability, in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4553-A(1)(A)(C)-(D), holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the superior court erred in excluding his proposed jury instruction that "it is illegal as a matter of law for any employer to impose a 100% healed or 100% fit policy on any applicants for employment or any employees." The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff properly preserved his objection to the court's instructions; and (2) the trial court did not err by rejecting Plaintiff's proposed instruction because it was sufficiently covered in the court's instructions. View "Smith v. City of Sanford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court divorcing Katharine Allerding from Neill Ewing-Wegmann, holding that Allerding was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Allerding challenged portion of the order awarding her and Ewing-Wegmann shared parental rights of their daughter and allocating Father's Day with the child to Ewing-Wegmann. Allerding also appealed the court's judgment ordering her to contribute to the fees of the appointed guardian ad litem (GAL). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determinations of rights of contact; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating GAL fees. View "Ewing-Wegmann v. Allerding" on Justia Law

In the underlying matter involving a longstanding dispute between two condominium owners (Owners) and the Compass Harbor Village Condominium Association and Compass Harbor Village, LLC (collectively, Compass Harbor) the Supreme Court dismissed this instant appeal from orders of the business and consumer docket, holding that the appeal was interlocutory.The district court entered a judgment awarding Owners damages and attorney fees against Compass Harbor, and the Supreme Court affirmed in part. The instant action involved a complaint brought against Compass Harbor and Owners seeking to enforce the judgment. Here, Owners appealed from orders granting motions to dismiss filed by some of the defendants. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory, holding that the orders did not dispose of all claims against all defendants, and therefore, the interlocutory appeal must be dismissed. View "Maples v. Compass Harbor Village Condominium Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering Torrey Sears's divorce from Bobby Sears but vacated the portion of the district court's order awarding Bobby spousal support, distributing the parties' property and debt, and awarding Bobby attorney fees, holding that the court's income and valuation findings did not provide a sufficient predicate to assess the specific awards.On appeal, Torrey argued that the district court erred in its financial rulings because it failed to conduct sufficient fact finding with respect to his income. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed and vacated the order in part, holding that while the district court's rulings appeared reasonable on this record, because the court failed to make sufficient findings regarding Torrey's income this court was unable to conduct appellate review of the majority of the court's financial rulings. View "Sears v. Sears" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Jean Voelker's appeal of a judgment of the probate court concluding that a document proffered by Voelker as the last will and testament of Theodore Ackley (the Decedent) was not a valid holographic will, holding that this appeal was an improper interlocutory appeal.Joseph Ackley, the Decedent's son, filed an application for informal probate of the Decedent's last will and testament. Thereafter, Voelker filed a petition for formal probate and submitted the petition of a purported copy of the Decedent's holographic will. The probate court granted Ackley's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the document was not a valid holographic will. The court, however, did not render a decision on Voelker's counter-motion for judgment as a matter of law arguing that the document she submitted was valid as a holographic will. Voelker appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal brought from the probate court's interlocutory order, holding that the order was not a final judgment, and therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. View "Estate of Theodore C. Ackley" on Justia Law