Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the probate court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 9-204(a)-(b) and Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(2), (B)(2)(a) and (B)(2)(b)(ii), holding that the probate court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the probate court’s findings that Mother and Father were parentally unfit and that termination of their parental rights was in the best interest of the child; and (2) Father failed to demonstrate, and the record did not reveal, any error in the probate court’s handling of objections that were raised to the maternal grandmother’s testimony. View "In re Adoption of Ivan M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the superior court dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint but vacated the order imposing sanctions on Plaintiffs, holding that the superior court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions.After the Town of Arundel Planning Board denied an application to renew a conditional use permit submitted by Dubois Livestock Inc., Plaintiffs - Marcel Dubois and Sol Fedder - filed this complaint against the Town, individual members of the Planning Board, and the Town Planner, alleging that the Planning Board met at an illegal executive session or sessions. The superior court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The superior court then granted Defendants attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the superior court did not err in dismissing the complaint because Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue a Me. R. Civ. P. 80B complaint, and the complaint failed to state a claim under the Freedom of Access Act, Me. Rev. Stat. 1, 400-414; and (2) the superior court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 11 was an abuse of discretion. View "Dubois v. Town of Arundel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the children of Mother and Father were in jeopardy pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035, holding that the court’s findings were supported by competent record evidence.After the Department of Health and Human Services filed a child protection petition against Mother and Father as to their three minor children the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were in circumstances of jeopardy to their health and welfare. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court’s factual findings were supported by competent record evidence. View "In re Children of Travis G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the superior court granting summary judgment on Appellants’ appeal from the assessment of tax on certain foreign income, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Appellants argued that the superior court misinterpreted and misapplied Me. Rev. Stat. 36, 5217-A regarding the income tax credit available to them for income taxes paid to a foreign jurisdiction and erred in determining that the penalties and interest assessed against them for the 2012 and 2013 tax years were appropriate. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court properly upheld the decision limiting the credit available under section 5217-A; and (2) the court did not err in its decision to uphold in full the assessment of penalties and interest against Appellants. View "Warnquist v. State Tax Assessor" on Justia Law

In this appeal involving a dispute over payment for the construction of a traditional timber frame home, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court calculating the damages recoverable under the Unfair Trade Practice Act (UTPA) stemming from Contractor’s violation of the Home Construction Contracts Act (HCCA), holding that, the superior court did not err in its judgment.Contractor brought this action seeking to be paid for his unpaid labor. The superior court concluded (1) Contractor was entitled to the money he had already received from Homeowners under the theory of quantum meruit; (2) Homeowners did not meet their burden of proof as to their counterclaims; and (3) Contractor violated the HCCA by failing to furnish a written contract, which was prima facie evidence of a UTPA violation. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) while the parties did not sign a contract in this case, the superior court’s application of quantum meruit was appropriate; (2) the superior court did not err in concluding that Homeowners failed to prove their counterclaims; (3) Homeowners were not entitled to additional damages under the UTPA; and (4) the attorneys fees award in this case was sufficient. View "Sweet v. Breivogel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the superior court affirming the judgment of the district court in favor of Appellee, Appellant’s landlord, holding that Appellant’s violation of his lease in three ways that were independent from his possession of marijuana justified Appellee’s termination of the lease.Appellee issued Appellant a notice that it was terminating the parties’ lease, stating that Appellant’s use and possession of marijuana, as well as some of Appellant’s other activities, violated the terms of the parties’ lease. Appellee then filed an forcible entry and detainer complaint, and the district court entered judgment granting possession of the apartment to Appellant. Appellant appealed, arguing that because he had a certificate to use marijuana for medical purposes, Appellee and the district court were required to reasonably accommodate his possession and use of marijuana. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s violations of his lease that were independent from his possession of marijuana, standing alone, justified Appellee’s termination of the lease. View "Sherwood Associates LP v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of three counts of possession of sexually explicit material of a minor under age twelve, holding that the court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant.On appeal, Defendant argued that the search warrant was stale, failed to describe the items to be seized with “scrupulous exactitude,” as required by the First Amendment, and otherwise failed to describe the places to be searched and the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, holding (1) the trial court did not err in ruling that the information the court relied on was not stale; (2) the warrant’s description of the items to be seized and the purpose for their seizure did not implicate the heightened “scrupulous exactitude” standard; and (3) the warrant was not overbroad and satisfied the constitutional requirement for particularity. View "State v. Roy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4050-4056, holding that the record supported the court’s findings that at least one ground of parental unfitness had been proved and that termination of Parents’ rights was in the children’s best interests.On appeal, Father advanced no arguments, but Mother argued that the district court erred in taking judicial notice of prior proceedings. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court independently assessed all facts presented; and (2) the court’s determination that termination of parental rights was established by clear and convincing evidence was supported by the record. View "In re Children of Bradford W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to four of her children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv), holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) Mother’s counsel at the termination hearing did not provide ineffective assistance in failing to seek recusal and failing to move for further findings; (2) the district court’s findings were supported by the record; and (3) the district court did not err in making a credibility determination concerning one of Mother’s witnesses. View "In re Children of Crystal G." on Justia Law

In this appeal from a family matter judgment after a judicial review hearing in a child protection matter the Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal from the child protection matter and affirmed the judgment in the family matter, holding that the issue raised in the child protection matter was not properly raised and that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the family matter.The district court dismissed the child protection matter, opened a family matter, and entered an order in the family matter that gave sole parental rights and responsibilities to Mother and denied rights of contact to Father. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) because the entry of the family matter judgment was appealable only pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 104, Father improperly raised his issue in a Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4006, 4038 appeal; (2) when a party appeals from a family matter judgment entered as a result of an unappealable judicial review hearing in a child protection matter, the right to counsel does not extend to the appeal from the family matter judgment; and (3) the court did not err in denying Father’s motion to testify by video link or in denying Father’s request for rights of contact with the child. View "In re Child of Nicholas G." on Justia Law