Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed this appeal from a partial summary judgment entered by the superior court in favor of Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC and M&T Mortgage Corporation as interlocutory, holding that the judgment that Kittery Point Partners, LLC (KPP) appealed from was not a final judgment.KPP filed a complaint against Bayview and M&T seeking a declaratory judgment that a promissory note and the mortgage securing it were invalid. The superior court ordered entry of a partial summary judgment in favor of Bayview and M&T. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed KPP’s appeal from this order, holding that the court was unable to determine from the superior court’s order whether the facts of this case constituted such an unusual circumstances that the merits of an interlocutory appeal should be considered before all pending claims were resolved. View "Kittery Point Partners, LLC v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

The district court did not err in granting Plaintiff’s petition for a protection from abuse order against Defendant, her boyfriend.After a hearing, the district court found that Defendant had abused Plaintiff and issued a two-year protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err or disregard substantial evidence in its ultimate finding that Defendant abused Plaintiff; and (2) the district court’s application of the best evidence rule, Me. R. Evid. 1002, was not in error when it required Defendant to allow Plaintiff to review either printed copies or the electronic versions of emails and texts prior to his cross-examination of her. View "Deah v. Cuthbert" 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 pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii). The Court also affirmed the judgment of the district court finding jeopardy to the parents’ daughter’s health and welfare pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035. Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence in the record supported the court’s findings of parental unfitness and its discretionary determination that termination of the parents’ parental rights was in their son’s best interest; and (2) the court’s jeopardy findings as to the daughter were supported by competent evidence in the record. View "In re Children of Alice R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The Court held (1) the district court’s finding that Father was incapable of alleviating jeopardy or providing adequate care for the child in a time reasonably calculated to meet her needs was supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) the district court’s other specific findings of fact were supported by competent evidence in the record; and (3) the district court did not err in its unfitness determination or abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Eric K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her daughter pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv). The Court held (1) all of the district court’s findings of fact were supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) given the court’s specific findings of fact, the court did not err in its finding of parental unfitness, nor did it abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest; and (3) there was ample evidence in the record that the Department of Human Services made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunify the family. View "In re Child of Heather W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv). Contrary to Father’s contention, each of the district court’s unfitness findings was supported by competent evidence in the record. Further, Father’s additional arguments that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue the hearing on the petition to terminate Father’s parental rights and abused its discretion when it denied his attorney’s motion to withdraw were without merit. View "In re Child of Nicholas M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court on consolidated Rule 80C appeals from the decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board (MLRB) on the School Administrative District 3 Education Association MEA/NEA’s (the Association) prohibited practice complaint, holding that the MLRB did not err when it held that the 120-day notice provision in Me. Rev. Stat. 26, 965(1) applied to the request for impact bargaining in this case.The Association filed a prohibited practice complaint with the MLRB against the Board of Directors of Regional School Unit 3 (the School Board), alleging that the School Board violated Me. Rev. Stat. 26, 964(1)(E) and 965(1) when it refused to participate in mediation and fact-finding procedures with respect to the effect of a new bus system. The MLRB determined that the Association failed to comply with the 120-day notice requirement in section 965(1) by failing to participate in fact-finding concerning the impact of the new busing system. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the MLRB did not clearly err in finding that the Association did not provide adequate notice to satisfy section 965(1). View "SAD 3 Education Ass’n v. RSU 3 Board of Directors" on Justia Law

The Town of Steuben’s taking of an interest in Rogers Point Road by eminent domain pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 23, 3023 was constitutional because it arose from a public exigency and was for public use.Bayberry Cove Children’s Land Trust filed a complaint challenging the Town’s determinations that the taking of an interest in the road was supported by a public exigency and that the use of the road was public. The superior court affirmed the Town’s decision. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was a rational basis in the record to support the Town’s finding of a public exigency; (2) evidence in the record, confirmed by the Trust’s characterization of the public’s right to use the road, definitively established that the interest in the road was taken for a public use; and (3) therefore, the taking was constitutional. View "Bayberry Cove Children's Land Trust v. Town of Steuben" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court affirming the Town of Yarmouth Planning Board’s approval of a site plan application by Verizon Wireless to install wireless communication equipment on a tower and site owned by the Yarmouth Water District, holding that the Board did not err by concluding that Verizon’s application complied with the relevant provisions of Yarmouth’s Zoning Ordinance. Contrary to Appellants’ contentions on appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) the Yarmouth Water District site was not subject to a presumption of unsuitability because the relevant article of the Ordinance applies only to new-tower-construction applicants; and (2) substantial evidence in the record supported the Board’s findings that Verizon presented sufficient evidence that it investigated other technically feasible sites and that none was available. View "Olson v. Town of Yarmouth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court affirming the Town of Yarmouth Planning Board’s approval of a site plan application by Verizon Wireless to install wireless communication equipment on a tower and site owned by the Yarmouth Water District, holding that the Board did not err by concluding that Verizon’s application complied with the relevant provisions of Yarmouth’s Zoning Ordinance. Contrary to Appellants’ contentions on appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) the Yarmouth Water District site was not subject to a presumption of unsuitability because the relevant article of the Ordinance applies only to new-tower-construction applicants; and (2) substantial evidence in the record supported the Board’s findings that Verizon presented sufficient evidence that it investigated other technically feasible sites and that none was available. View "Olson v. Town of Yarmouth" on Justia Law