Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pat Doe and Jarrod Burnham each filed complaints for protection from abuse against each other in December 2021. Doe's complaint was transferred to Portland for a consolidated hearing, where the court found that Burnham had abused Doe and granted her a two-year protection order effective until January 14, 2024. On January 4, 2024, Doe attempted to file a motion to extend the protection order in Bangor but was informed it needed to be filed in Portland. She mailed the motion on January 13, 2024, but it never arrived due to insufficient postage. Doe learned the order had not been extended on January 17, 2024, and filed a new protection from abuse action in Bangor.The District Court in Portland denied Doe's motion to extend the protection order, concluding it could not extend an expired order. Doe's motion for reconsideration was also denied, with the court finding that her failure to file on time was not excusable neglect and that the statute did not permit extending an expired order. Doe then filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing excusable neglect, which was also denied. The court stated that excusable neglect under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) did not apply to statutory deadlines.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decisions, holding that 19-A M.R.S. § 4111(1) unambiguously prohibits extending an expired protection order. The court also held that a motion for relief from judgment cannot be used to circumvent statutory authority, and thus the trial court did not err in denying Doe's motion for relief from judgment. View "Doe v. Burnham" on Justia Law

Craig A. Woodard was convicted of elevated aggravated assault, aggravated assault, and assault after a jury trial. The trial court found that the offense of elevated aggravated assault was committed with the use of a firearm and imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of four years’ imprisonment. The court merged the offenses and sentenced Woodard to twelve years’ imprisonment with all but five years suspended and three years of probation. Woodard appealed, arguing that the court erred in failing to give jury instructions regarding defense of another and in applying the mandatory minimum sentence for a Class A offense committed with a firearm. He also contended that the court improperly considered his age and lack of remorse as aggravating factors.The trial court (Hancock County, Larson, J.) denied Woodard’s motion for a judgment of acquittal and sentenced him as described. Woodard’s appeal was consolidated with his sentence review appeal, which was granted by the Sentence Review Panel.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s judgment and sentence. The court held that Woodard waived the issue of jury instructions regarding defense of another by not requesting them at trial and agreeing with his counsel’s strategy. The court also found that the indictment sufficiently alleged the use of a firearm, justifying the mandatory minimum sentence. Additionally, the court ruled that considering Woodard’s age and lack of remorse as aggravating factors was within the trial court’s discretion and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. View "State of Maine v. Woodard" on Justia Law

Michaela Boland filed for divorce in October 2019. In September 2022, the parties reached a settlement agreement regarding the economic issues of their divorce, which was accepted by the court. The agreement included a provision for Nicholas Belair to transfer $50,000 annually to Michaela for five years, secured by a promissory note from Nicholas's father, Roland Belair. However, Roland later reneged on his commitment to fund the payments, leading Michaela to file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.The District Court (Tice, J.) denied Michaela's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding that the agreement was based on a material mistake of fact and was therefore unenforceable. The court concluded that Nicholas could not make the payments without his father's assistance and set the matter for trial. Michaela appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory. The court (D. Driscoll, J.) later held a bench trial and determined that Nicholas's interest in a real estate company was nonmarital property, leading to a final divorce judgment.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and held that the settlement agreement was enforceable. The court found that all requirements for a binding settlement agreement were met, as the parties had reported the agreement to the court, read its terms into the record, and expressed clear consent. The court concluded that there was no mistake of fact at the time the agreement was reached, as Roland had agreed to fund the payments. The court vacated the order denying Michaela's motion to enforce, vacated the divorce judgment, and remanded for incorporation of the settlement agreement into a divorce judgment. View "Boland v. Belair" on Justia Law

Abdihamit A. Ali was convicted of elevated aggravated assault, reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and criminal mischief following a jury trial in the Cumberland County Unified Criminal Docket. The court sentenced him to fifteen years, with all but seven years suspended, and four years of probation for the elevated aggravated assault charge, with concurrent sentences for the other charges. Ali appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony and failed to merge his convictions for elevated aggravated assault and reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon.The trial court admitted testimony from a detective about statements made by Ali’s mother to other officers, which Ali argued was hearsay. The court overruled Ali’s objection, and the jury found him guilty on three counts, while the court found him guilty on the fourth count. Ali was sentenced accordingly and appealed the decision.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and agreed that the hearsay testimony should not have been admitted without a limiting instruction. However, the court found this error to be harmless given the substantial evidence against Ali. The court also agreed with Ali that his convictions for elevated aggravated assault and reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon should have been merged, as they did not each require proof of an additional fact and could have been based on the same conduct. Consequently, the court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, merging the two convictions. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "State of Maine v. Ali" on Justia Law

Christopher Ray was observed by a Cumberland Police Department officer riding his bicycle slightly to the left of the white fog line on Tuttle Road. The officer, traveling behind Ray and another cyclist, instructed them to ride single file. Ray responded with an expletive, prompting the officer to stop them and issue Ray a violation summons for failing to keep to the right of the road, as required by 29-A M.R.S. § 2063(2).Ray contested the violation, and a bench trial was held in the District Court (Portland). The court found Ray had committed the traffic infraction of not operating his bicycle on the right portion of the way as far as practicable and imposed a fine of $151. Ray appealed the decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case de novo, focusing on the interpretation of 29-A M.R.S. § 2063(2). The Court found the statute ambiguous regarding where cyclists must operate when the command to ride to the right applies. The Court noted that the terms "roadway" and "way" were not clearly defined, and the statute's language left it up to the cyclist to determine what was safe, making enforcement difficult. The Court concluded that the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of Ray, vacated the adjudication, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Ray. View "State of Maine v. Ray" on Justia Law

Yolanda M. Currier and James M. Currier were married in 2000, and Yolanda filed for divorce in 2017. The divorce judgment, entered in 2019, awarded Yolanda sole parental rights and responsibilities for their three children, child support, spousal support, and half the value of James’s employee stock plan and 401(k) account. James was found to have committed economic misconduct by cashing in stocks and taking loans against his 401(k) during the divorce proceedings.The District Court (South Paris) found James in contempt multiple times for failing to comply with the divorce judgment. In 2023, Yolanda filed a fifth motion for contempt, asserting that James failed to provide an accounting of his stocks and did not file a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the division of his 401(k) account. The court found James not in contempt regarding the stock division, concluding that Yolanda did not prove James owned stocks. However, the court found James in contempt regarding the 401(k) account, valuing it at $7,000 and awarding Yolanda $3,500.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found that the District Court erred in its findings. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that Yolanda met her burden of proving James’s noncompliance with the stock accounting and division order. The court also found that the District Court erred in valuing the 401(k) account at $7,000, as this figure excluded the value of loans taken against the account, contrary to the divorce judgment’s provisions.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, noting James’s pattern of noncompliance and suggesting the consideration of punitive sanctions if his contumacious conduct continues. View "Currier v. Currier" on Justia Law

Ethan C. Gervais was convicted of domestic violence assault, tampering with a witness, domestic violence criminal threatening, and violating a condition of release after a two-day jury trial. The charges stemmed from incidents in February and May 2023, where Gervais assaulted the victim and Gervais' brother and engaged in threatening behavior. The evidence included Facebook messages between Gervais and the victim, which were admitted at trial.The trial court admitted the Facebook messages and testimony regarding Gervais's drug use. The court allowed the State to use the term "victim" during closing arguments but limited its use during the trial. Gervais appealed, challenging the admission of the Facebook messages, the testimony about his drug use, the use of the term "victim," and the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that the Facebook messages were properly admitted with sufficient foundation. The testimony regarding Gervais's drug use did not rise to the level of obvious error, as it was limited and did not significantly impact the trial's fairness. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to use the term "victim" during closing arguments, as it was contextually appropriate and did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct.The court acknowledged that the prosecutor's use of the phrase "I think" during closing arguments was improper but concluded that it did not amount to obvious error. The trial court's timely curative instruction mitigated any potential prejudice, and the overall fairness of the trial was not compromised. Therefore, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "State of Maine v. Gervais" on Justia Law

Juanita and Stephen Clark, Linda and Cliff Trebilcock, and Dan Gurney reside on Fuller Mountain Road in the Town of Phippsburg. Gurney has operated a firewood business from his property for thirty years. In September 2020, the Clarks and the Trebilcocks complained to the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) that Gurney’s business was a nuisance under the Town’s Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The CEO found no violation, but the Clarks and the Trebilcocks appealed to the Board of Appeals (BOA), which found the business to be a nuisance. The Board of Selectmen (BOS) later found that Gurney had abated the nuisance.The Clarks and the Trebilcocks challenged the BOS’s decision in the Superior Court (Sagadahoc County), arguing that the BOS lacked authority to conduct a de novo review and that there were due process violations. The Superior Court affirmed the BOS’s decision, leading to the Clarks’ appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the BOA’s findings were outside the scope of the current appeal but found that the BOS exceeded its authority and violated due process in its review. The Court held that the BOS did not have the authority to review the CEO’s decision and that the BOS’s role was limited to deciding whether a consent agreement could be achieved or if court action was necessary. The Court also found procedural due process violations due to the conduct of BOS Chair Julia House, who exhibited bias and engaged in ex parte communications.The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Superior Court with instructions to remand to the BOS for new proceedings without the participation of Chair Julia House. View "Clark v. Town of Phippsburg" on Justia Law

In 2002 and 2009, the town of Pembroke recorded tax liens against property owned jointly by Brian E. Priest and his wife, Lisa C. Priest. The Priests paid the delinquent taxes, and the town discharged the liens through "municipal quitclaim deeds." After Brian died intestate, a dispute arose among his heirs regarding whether the tax liens had severed the joint tenancy, thus terminating Lisa's right of survivorship.The Penobscot County Probate Court denied Lisa's petition to reform the municipal quitclaim deeds to reflect that the property remained in joint tenancy. The court found no evidence of the transferor's intention at the time the deeds were drafted and dismissed the petition. The court did not address Lisa's alternative request for a declaration that the property was not an asset of the estate.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and concluded that the joint tenancy was not severed because the town never foreclosed on either tax lien mortgage. The court held that the municipal quitclaim deeds served only to discharge the liens and did not affect the joint tenancy. Consequently, Lisa's right of survivorship remained intact. The judgment of the Probate Court was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Estate of Priest" on Justia Law

Pat Doe filed a complaint for protection from harassment against John Costin on behalf of her two minor children, alleging aggressive behavior by Costin, including blocking their car at school. The District Court issued a temporary order for protection, which was later made permanent for the children but not for Doe. Doe did not request attorney fees within the required time frame.Doe later moved to modify the order, fearing that Costin might access the school after a no-trespass notice expired. The court modified the order to prohibit Costin from entering the school when the children were present and awarded Doe attorney fees. Costin opposed the modification and the attorney fees, arguing the motion was frivolous and untimely.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. The court found the appeal regarding the modified order moot since it had expired. However, it reviewed the attorney fees award, determining that the lower court erred in awarding fees for services provided before the motion to modify. The court vacated the attorney fees award and remanded the case for reconsideration of fees related only to the motion to modify. View "Doe v. Costin" on Justia Law