Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment finding that two of Father's children were in circumstances of jeopardy pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035(2) and that returning the children to Father's custody was likely to cause them serious emotional or physical damage pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.S. 1901-1963, holding that the court's factual findings supported its determination that the children were in jeopardy. Specifically, the Court held that, contrary to Father's contention, the court's findings established as more likely than not that returning the children to Father's custody would cause the children "[s]erious harm or [the] threat of serious harm." 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4002(6)(A). View "In re Children of Troy H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court granting Progressive Casualty Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment and denying National Wrecker, Inc.'s (NWI) summary judgment motion, holding that a judgment obtained by NWI against Fred Muluya, Progressive's insured, was not covered by Muluya's automobile insurance contract.After an accident involving Muluya's truck NWI filed a complaint against Muluya seeking payment of its invoice for towing fees, storage fees, and costs associated with clean-up of the accident. The superior court awarded NWI $26,540 in total damages. Muluya carried a commercial auto insurance policy with Progressive. NWI filed a claim against Progressive seeking recovery of the judgment it obtained against Muluya. The superior court granted Progressive's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the policy did not cover NWI's judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Progressive was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because NWI did not establish that its judgment against Muluya was for covered damage. View "National Wrecker, Inc. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this child protection proceeding the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decisions of the district court entering a jeopardy order against Father and a later order adjudicating that he was the child's father, holding none of Father's challenges to the court's orders was persuasive.At the jeopardy hearing, the court found that Father was the child's biological father, that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy to his health or welfare, and that Father's abuse of the other child constituted an aggravating factor, entering a cease reunification order on that basis. Later, based on genetic test results revealing that Father was the child's biological parent, the court issued an order adjudicating that Father was the biological parent of the child. Father appealed both orders. As to the first order, Father argued that the court was required to adjudicate that he was a parent of the child before it could consider whether he presented circumstances of jeopardy to the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court correctly determined that Father was judicially estopped from challenging his parentage of the child; and (2) the court did not err by adjudicating Father's parentage without holding a hearing. View "In re Child of Nicholas P." on Justia Law

In this dispute between Beachfront Owners and the Town of Kennebunkport over who held title to disputed portions of Goose Rocks Beach the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the holding of the trial court that, under the circumstances of this case, legal title to the property was held by the Town for the benefit of the public.The Beachfront Owners sued the Town seeking a declaratory judgment that each of their parcels includes land to the mean low water mark - subject to public rights to fish, fowl, and navigate in the intertidal zone. The Beachfront Owners also sought to quiet title to their alleged breach property. In response, the Town asserted its title to the beach and the dry sand above it and that it and the public had the right to use those areas. The superior court determined that the Town held title - derived from the original Town proprietors' ownership of common land - to the dry sand and beach in front of the majority of the properties in dispute. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that title to the disputed land seaward of the seawall, including the beach, was held by the Town for the benefit of the public. View "Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the superior court denying Beal Bank USA's complaint to compel the assignment of a mortgage to Beal by the insolvent originating lender, New Century Mortgage Corporation, holding that the court did not err in denying the relief sought by Beal to compel assignment of the mortgage in this case.On appeal, Beal argued that because it was the holder of the note secured by the mortgage, the court erred when it failed to apply the equitable trust doctrine to conclude that New Century held the mortgage in trust for Beal and that Beal was entitled to an assignment of the mortgage. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) although the holder of the note may retain some equitable interest in the accompanying mortgage, any such interest, standing alone, does not equate to actual ownership of the mortgage, nor is the interest sufficient to establish a pre-foreclosure right to compel its assignment; and (2) Beal did not produce sufficient independent evidence of ownership of the mortgage to compel an assignment. View "Beal Bank USA v. New Century Mortgage Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the court did not err in finding abandonment and did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest.On appeal, Mother argued that the court erred as a matter of law in concluding that her failure to appear on the second day of the termination hearing constituted abandonment, in finding that she had the "intent to forego parental duties," and went beyond the scope of a termination proceeding by speculating about who would adopt the child post-termination. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in finding that Mother had the intent to forego her parental duties and had therefore abandoned the child; and (2) the court acted with in the scope of its authority in speculating that the child would be placed with the great-grandmother. View "In re Child of Olivia F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of operating a vehicle when the registration of that vehicle was suspended, holding that the State was not required to provide counsel to Defendant.Defendant was tried before a jury without counsel. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the trial court entered a judgment after imposing a fine supplemented by surcharges. Defendant appealed, arguing that he had a right to court-appointed counsel because of his inability or unwillingness to pay a fine and that jury selection proceedings were deficient. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant was not at risk of incarceration as part of the sentence the State was not required to provide counsel; and (2) there was no basis for a claim of legal error or abuse of discretion regarding jury proceedings. View "State v. Lipski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his two youngest children, holding that Father's due process rights were not violated during the termination proceedings and that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests.On appeal, Father argued, among other things, that the district court erred in denying his motion to continue when he was absent during the second day of the termination hearing because he had been arrested shortly before the proceedings began. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the resumption of the termination hearing when Father was not present did not deprive him of his right to due process; and (2) the court's best interest determination was well within its discretion. View "In re Children of Benjamin W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the court did not err by finding that Mother was parentally unfit and that termination was in the child's best interest.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) competent evidence supported the court's determination that Mother was parentally unfit; and (2) given the court's proper findings of the child's need for safety, security, and permanency, and Mother's failure to have met those needs, the court did not err in concluding that termination was in the best interest of the child. View "In re Child of Katherine C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their child, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the parents' parental rights would be in the child's best interest.On appeal, Father challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the court's determination that he was unfit, and both parents argued that the court erred in concluding that termination of their parental rights was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not clearly err by finding that Father was unlikely to become fit within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the child's best interest where the permanency plan for the child was adoption or a permanency guardianship with the child's grandmother. View "In re Child of Kimberly K." on Justia Law