Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of Deutsche Bank on Deutsche Bank's foreclosure complaint, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.On appeal, Stephen Clifford argued that the district court abused its discretion by admitting several documents under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay and erred in finding that Deutsche Bank satisfied the elements of proof to support the judgment of foreclosure. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the documents under the business records exception; and (2) Deutsche Bank proved all the required elements to foreclose by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Clifford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the twelve-year concurrent sentences imposed on Defendant for three counts of aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs months after the parties entered into a plea agreement involving the dismissal of other charges, holding that the trial court did not misapply sentencing principles or abuse its sentencing authority.Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs and was sentenced to twelve-year concurrent sentences. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated his due process rights by imposing the maximum sentences allowed by the plea agreement and disregarded sentencing factors when it refused to suspend a portion of Defendant's sentences and order probation. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that concurrent, unsuspended twelve-year sentences with no period of probation were appropriate for the three aggravated trafficking convictions. View "State v. Gordon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court dismissing for failure to state a claim Corinth Pellets, LLC's complaint alleging that a fire loss at Corinth's wood pellet mill was covered under a commercial property insurance policy issued by Arch, holding that the superior court erred in its interpretation of Maine's surplus lines insurance law, Me. Rev. Stat. 24-A, 2009-A.On appeal, Corinth argued that the fire loss was covered under the policy, despite having occurred after the policy term had expired, because Arch failed notify Corinth of its intention not to renew the policy as required by section 2009-A, and therefore, the policy was automatically renewed at the end of the term. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that section 2009-A(1) requires a surplus lines insurer to give written notice of its intent either to cancel a policy or not to renew a policy at least fourteen days before the effective date of cancellation or nonrenewal. View "Corinth Pellets, LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the superior court's grant of summary judgment concluding that the taxable "sale price" of iPhones sold at discounted prices to customers who entered into wireless service contracts at Apple Inc.'s retail stores did not include payments made by the wireless service carriers to Apple in connection with the sales, holding that the amounts paid by the carriers to Apple constitute part of the taxable sale prices for the phones.In granting summary judgment for Apple and denied the summary judgment motion filed by the State Tax Assessor the superior court concluded that the carriers' payments to Apple were insufficiently linked to the phones' purchases to constitute reimbursement for the discounts. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the grant of summary judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the Assessor, holding that because Apple expected at the time of sale it would be reimbursed by the carriers for the price discounts granted to customers entering into wireless service contracts with the carriers, the amounts Apple paid to carriers constituted part of the taxable sale prices for the phones. View "Apple Inc. v. State Tax Assessor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of sexually explicit material, holding that the superior court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress on the grounds that Defendant, despite his diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), was capable of voluntary consent.Defendant sought to suppress his statements to police regarding sexually explicit material depicting minors found on his electronic tablet and any evidence of sexually explicit materials depicting minors discovered as a result. The superior court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that Defendant had the capacity to and did voluntarily speak to the police and consent to the search of his tablet. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's ASD did not render his statements or the search of his tablet involuntary. View "State v. Glenn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court denying A.S.'s petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release from his detention, holding that the superior court erred when it determined that the detention was lawful.A.S. was brought by law enforcement officers to the LincolnHealth Miles Hospital Campus and was held in the hospital's emergency department for thirty days. During that time, LincolnHealth did not seek or obtain judicial endorsement of its detention of A.S., as required by Me. Rev. Stat. 34-B, 3863. A.S. sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that LincolnHealth violated the statutory procedure for emergency involuntary hospitalization. The superior court denied the petition. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court's judgment, holding (1) A.S.'s detention was unauthorized because the hospital did not comply with section 3863; and (2) A.S.'s due process rights were violated when the superior court applied a standard of preponderance of the evidence, rather than clear and convincing evidence, to determine whether A.S. posed a likelihood of serious harm at the time of the habeas hearing. View "A.S. v. LincolnHealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order of the probate court ordering that a sixteen-year-old minor, who had been residing with his mother and his siblings in Mississippi for over a year, would start living with his grandparents in Maine one week after the order was issued, holding that the court did not have the authority to enter the order.The minor child's grandparents petitioned the probate court for full guardianship of the child. The grandparents also separately moved for appointment as guardians on an emergency basis. The court eventually issued a document entitled "Consent Order" providing that the petition for guardianship be continued. The mother filed an emergency motion to vacate the consent order and to dismiss the guardianship request, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case. The court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the court did not have the authority to grant the requested relief and should have granted the mother's motion to dismiss. View "Guardianship by Joseph W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the summary judgment entered by the superior court in favor of Concord General Mutual Insurance Company on Arthur Bibeau's complaint for alleged breaches and violations of the homeowner's insurance policy issued to him by Concord, holding that the policy did not unambiguously exclude from coverage losses caused by earth movement.Bibeau insured his home through a policy issued to him by Concord. Bibeau submitted a notice of claim to Concord alleging that his home was damaged by a water line leak that pushed sand and other material under the foundation of his home. Concord denied the claim based on the policy's earth movement exclusion and its anti-concurrent-causation clause. Bibeau then brought this action. The superior court granted summary judgment for Concord on all counts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err in determining that the policy was unambiguous and that Bibeau's losses were excluded from coverage pursuant to the earth movement exclusion. View "Bibeau v. Concord General Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed after he pled guilty to the intentional and knowing murder of his wife, holding that the sentencing court followed proper sentencing procedures and appropriately exercised its discretion in determining the sources and types of information to consider.After a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced Defendant to forty years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court misapplied the first step of the sentencing analysis required by Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 1252-C by failing to conduct a proper comparison of the circumstances of his crime to similar murders. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court properly exercised its discretion in considering comparable sentences when imposing Defendant's sentence; and (2) the court thoughtfully considered the relevant facts and sentencing principles in determining Defendant's sentence. View "State v. Leng" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of John Bump on Wells Fargo Bank's foreclosure complaint, holding that the court did not err by concluding that a 2015 order dismissing without prejudice Wells Fargo's earlier action seeking foreclosure on the same mortgage did not vacate the final judgment in Bump's favor that had been entered in 2013 in that same case.Wells Fargo filed a foreclosure action in the district court in 2009. After a bench trial in 2013, the court entered judgment on the merits in favor of Bump. In 2015, the court granted Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss the 2009 action without prejudice. In 2016, Wells Fargo filed a new action to foreclose on the same mortgage. In 2020, the court entered judgment in favor of Bump, stating that it took notice of the 2013 final judgment and concluding that the 2015 order of dismissal without prejudice did not operate to vacate that judgment. The court then determined that Wells Fargo's entire claim was barred by res judicial given the 2013 judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly concluded that the preclusive effect of the 2013 judgment barred the present action; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of the prior judgment. View "Wells Fargo Bank v. Bump" on Justia Law