Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her two minor children. On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s findings that the children could not wait for permanency and that Mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify. Mother also challenged the court’s determination that termination of her parental rights - not the creation of a permanency guardianship - was in the best interest of her children. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the evidence supported the court’s findings and discretionary determinations. View "In re Haylie W." on Justia Law

Rowland Whittet appealed from a superior court judgment granting a permanent injunction and authorizing a special master to proceed with the sale of a parcel of real estate. In this appeal, Daniel Whittet filed a motion for sanctions. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment and imposed a sanction of attorney fees and treble costs, holding (1) Rowland failed to provide transcripts of relevant proceedings to allow for adequate appellate review and made no argument as to why the court erred; and (2) Rowland asserted meritless claims and arguments that have been rejected and effectively delayed enforcement of a previous judgment and wasted time and resources. View "Whittet v. Whittet" on Justia Law

Alan Miller, acting “individually and in the right of” and for the benefit of SAM Miller, Inc. (SMI), filed a second amended complaint against Miller’s Lobster Company, Inc. (MLC), Steve Miller, and Mark Miller (collectively, the Millers) seeking injunctive relief and damages arising out of the lease of wharf property by SMI to MLC. The court granted the Millers’ and SMI’s motions for summary judgment, concluding that Alan Miller’s claims were barred on limitations grounds. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Alan’s action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that Alan did not meet his burden to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the limitations period was nevertheless tolled or otherwise inapplicable. View "Miller v. Miller" on Justia Law

Dawn Haskell and Martin Witham (together, Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Grover Bragg and Donald York (together, Defendants), asserting a claim for negligence against Defendants. Bragg did not timely file an answer after being served and did not otherwise appear in or defend in the matter. The clerk entered a default against Bragg. The court awarded compensatory damages based on the allegations in the complaint. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that although the trial court erred when it considered evidence of comparative negligence, the error was harmless because the court found that Plaintiffs were not negligent. View "Haskell v. Bragg" on Justia Law

In 1970, Beauchene was acquitted of a murder charge by reason of mental disease or defect and was committed to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, where he remains committed pursuant to 15 M.R.S. 103. In 2016, Beauchene filed a petition seeking a discharge or a modified treatment plan. The court held a hearing at which three mental health professionals testified. The court denied the petition, finding that Beauchene had been diagnosed with “explosive personality,” had escaped from custody in 1973 and was returned to custody in 1978, had escaped again and fled to New York, where he was convicted of rape, sodomy, and assault in 1980, and has mental health symptoms consistent with anti-social personality disorder. The court concluded that Beauchene’s mental condition has “changed very little, if any[,] since” 1970, and if discharged, released, or placed in a modified treatment plan, Beauchene would pose a risk of harm or danger to himself or to others. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, finding that Beauchene’s mental health symptoms constituted a “mental disease or defect” and that the statute provides sufficient notice and is not unconstitutionally vague and rejecting a due process claim. View "Beauchene v. State of Maine" on Justia Law

RIHC, a Maine nonprofit entity, owns Roque Island, 1,242 acres of land, with five houses and numerous outbuildings. Roque Island is a homestead that has been owned by the same family since the early 1800s. In 2010, Jonesport hired a certified private assessor for revaluation of all town properties. The assessor used state-approved assessment software. Its calculations include the character of the neighborhood so that values for island properties are calculated at a lower rate because they are not benefitted by certain services that mainland properties receive. Building values on islands are subject to an “economic obsolescence factor” of 200%, resulting in a greater assessed value than for a comparable mainland structures because of the additional cost of building on an island. Due to an oversight, the economic obsolescence factor originating with the 2010 revaluation was not fully applied to the Island structures until the 2014 tax year, when their total valuation increased by 52% from the previous year. RIHC sought an abatement of $1,305,150 from the 2014 building valuation assessment of $2,609,846, which would result in a property tax reduction of $20,000. That application was constructively denied. The Board of Appeals also denied RIHC’s application, concluding that RIHC’s buildings were being taxed consistently with buildings on islands in other towns. The lower court and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed; the record does not compel the conclusion that the rate differentiation is unjustly discriminatory. View "Roque Island Gardner Homestead Corp. v. Town of Jonesport" on Justia Law

The district court terminated father’s parental rights, 22 M.R.S. 4055(1)(B)(2), finding, by clear and convincing evidence that he is unfit; that termination of his parental rights was in the children’s best interest; and that the permanency plan for the children would be adoption. The mother of the boys was previously found to have abandoned them. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, finding that the evidence supported finding that father is unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs; is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for them within that timeframe; and failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children. The court noted father’s incarceration until at least July 2017, the testimony of mental health experts that the children “are very damaged, ” father’s history of substance abuse, including while he was incarcerated, which delayed his release, and his inconsistent communication with the children. The court noted extensive testimony about the need for permanency and stability for the children. View "In re: Mathew H." on Justia Law

Hall filed a foreclosure claim against Camden Hills on two sets of notes and mortgages on Camden residential property. By a May 2014 judgment, the Knox County Superior Court denied Hall’s claim, concluding that Hall had not given Camden Hills sufficient notice of right to cure, 14 M.R.S. 6111. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. In 2014, Hall filed a second foreclosure complaint in the District Court (Rockland). Camden Hills filed an answer denying the substantive allegations of default and asserting res judicata. Hall sought summary judgment. Camden Hills did not file a timely opposition or objection. Camden’s subsequent motion to dismiss alleged that the first foreclosure action was decided by a final judgment involving the same parties and the same cause of action. The court denied Camden Hills’s motion to dismiss and granted Hall summary judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Camden Hills’s appeal without reaching the merits because Camden Hills failed to comply with M.R. App. P. 8, addressing organization and the order in which documents are to appear in the appendix to the briefs. View "Hall v. Camden Hills Farm by the Sea, LLC" on Justia Law

The court terminated mother’s parental rights, 22 M.R.S. 4055(1)(A),(B), finding that she is unfit to parent the children because she has abandoned them, she is unwilling and unable to protect them from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs, and she has failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with them. The court also terminated the parental rights of the father of each child. Mother did not challenge the findings relating to termination of her rights but claimed that the children’s current placement, with their maternal grandparents, is unsafe, and that permanent placement there would not be in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, noting that the best interests determination in connection with the termination of mother’s parental rights was not a determination of who will adopt the children or that any particular placement is in their best interests. To the extent that mother seeks to challenge the court’s order identifying adoption as the permanency plan, 22 M.R.S. 4038-B(3), that order is interlocutory and not appealable. View "In re: Dominic B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, entered after a jury trial, for one count of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer, eleven counts of failure to pay tax or file a Maine State tax return, and one count of tampering with public records or information. On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find her guilty of theft and tampering with public records. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find each element of theft by unauthorized taking beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of tampering with public records. View "State v. Viles" on Justia Law