Daniel E. Wathen

This case involved a post-divorce dispute between Henry Shanoski and Marjorie Miller over visitation with their daughter, including a conflict over whether Maine or North Carolina courts should exercise jurisdiction. After the North Carolina court asserted jurisdiction, Shanoski sought enforcement of prior Maine orders and clarification of visitation in Maine, while Miller moved to have Maine decline jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum under the UCCJEA. The Maine District Court ruled that Maine had jurisdiction but declined to exercise it, finding North Carolina the more appropriate forum due to the child's long residence there and the location of relevant evidence; the Superior Court affirmed. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the UCCJEA factors and that the PKPA did not require Maine to retain the case. The judgment declining jurisdiction was affirmed.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a mother's appeal from a District Court judgment terminating her parental rights to her five children, following findings of unsafe living conditions, parental mental health issues, failure to comply with rehabilitation services, and cessation of visitations. The mother claimed violations of her free exercise of religion due to references to her Wiccan beliefs at an earlier hearing, a due process violation because she was absent from the cease-reunification hearing, and insufficient evidence supporting the termination and best-interests findings, particularly given the older children's preferences. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the termination, holding that any religious references did not taint the proceedings, the mother's absence did not violate due process given proper notice, and the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the findings on unfitness and best interests. The court reasoned that it had properly considered but was not bound by the children's wishes under statute, and that the mother's manipulative behavior and inability to provide stability outweighed those preferences. Credibility determinations by the trial court were upheld as within its discretion.

family lawreligious libertycivil rights

In State v. Deschenes, Michael Deschenes was convicted by a jury on two charges of operating under the influence after separate incidents at a park in Oxford, Maine, in May and July 2000. The Superior Court entered judgments on the verdicts, and Deschenes appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of operation or attempted operation. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that Deschenes's admission to driving after drinking sufficed to prove operation on the first charge under 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2431(4), and the officer's testimony about Deschenes attempting to start the vehicle while intoxicated established a substantial step toward operation on the second charge.

criminal law

In Bragdon v. Town of Vassalboro, neighbors appealed the Planning Board's approval of a site permit for an aluminum manufacturing facility, contending that the town's site review ordinance was invalid because it lacked a prior comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance, that certain performance standards were unconstitutionally vague, and that the absence of written findings violated due process. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision upholding the approval. The court held that state law does not require a comprehensive plan for site review ordinances that apply uniform standards town-wide without dividing land into zones, that overly vague standards cannot be invoked to block an approval, and that the board's publicly available minutes provided a sufficient record to satisfy due process absent a request for additional findings.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death negligence claim brought by the personal representative of Douglas Dionne against a taxi service and driver after Dionne, who had been drinking heavily, was transported by the taxi to a tavern and later to the Elks Lodge before dying in a single-car accident with a blood-alcohol level of .25. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed. The court held that common carriers owe a duty only to provide passengers a safe exit in a reasonably safe place and declined to expand that duty to require preventing an intoxicated passenger from later driving after safe discharge. The decision rested on the uncontested facts showing the driver observed Dionne walk safely into the locations and that the carrier-passenger relationship ended upon safe discharge.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Karen Richards sued the Town of Eliot and two police officers for claims including unlawful arrest, excessive force, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of constitutional rights and municipal procedures, stemming from her arrest after refusing to surrender her granddaughter to the child's mother during a custody dispute. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment on the unlawful arrest claim because the officers had probable cause to arrest Richards for the Class D offense of criminal restraint committed in their presence. The court vacated the summary judgment on the excessive force claim, however, concluding that disputed facts created a genuine issue regarding the reasonableness of the force used.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case is a divorce proceeding between Sandra and Patrick Libby, in which Sandra appealed the District Court's division of marital assets and termination of spousal support after June 1, 1999, with the Superior Court affirming and Sandra further appealing. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment, holding that the property division was not an abuse of discretion or plainly unjust. The court reasoned that the allocation, which awarded Patrick the marital home and more net value after debts, properly accounted for his financial and homemaking sacrifices that enabled Sandra's nursing degree and enhanced earning potential, while her future employment prospects justified ending support. The decision applied Maine statutes on equitable distribution and spousal support without speculation about unproven future income.

family lawproperty

This case involved a dispute between unmarried parents Adam W. Vogel and Darby J. Costa over parental rights and responsibilities for their minor child Kalvin after their separation. The District Court awarded shared parental rights with primary physical residence to Costa, a decision affirmed by the Superior Court. Vogel appealed, contending that the court erred in its best-interests analysis under 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1653 by overlooking the child's well-adjusted state and prior shared living arrangements. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the record directly and affirmed, holding that the trial court properly considered the child's need for stability and predictability by limiting transitions between homes, particularly during the school week, while granting Vogel extensive contact rights.

family law

This case concerns a workers' compensation dispute in which employee Steven Alexander sought benefits after suffering injuries while working on a short-term pipeline construction project for Portland Natural Gas. The Hearing Officer calculated Alexander's average weekly wage under 39-A M.R.S.A. § 102(4)(B) by dividing his earnings on that project by the weeks worked, resulting in a figure exceeding $2,000 per week. Portland Natural Gas appealed, arguing that subsection B produced an inflated wage inconsistent with Alexander's prior lower annual earnings and that the Hearing Officer should have applied the fallback provision in subsection D. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that the Hearing Officer erred by failing to consider subsection D and therefore vacated the decision, remanding the case for a new wage calculation and redetermination of the employee's level of incapacity.

labor & employment

This case involved AFAB's appeal from a Superior Court order partially granting reissuance of a writ of execution on a 1995 judgment against the Town of Old Orchard Beach for unpaid construction contract work. The Town had paid a portion of the judgment amount directly to the IRS in response to tax levies naming the individual contractor, and it offered the balance to AFAB only upon a release of the full judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the reduction of the writ by the IRS payment, holding that federal law required the Town to surrender the funds and discharged it from further liability to AFAB for that amount, while vacating the order in part on the separate issue of post-judgment interest accrual after the Town's offer.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

The case involves Roger Dargie's appeal from a divorce judgment entered by the District Court and affirmed by the Superior Court, granted on grounds of irreconcilable differences between Roger and Deborah Dargie. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reviewed challenges to the sufficiency of the trial court's factual findings under M.R. Civ. P. 52(b) and to the division of marital assets, including life insurance proceeds, a business interest, real estate, and a boat. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the district court's thirty-five-page decision contained adequate findings of fact to permit appellate review and that the property distribution complied with 19-A M.R.S.A. § 953 by making a fair and just allocation based on the circumstances, without constituting an abuse of discretion or violating any positive rule of law.

family lawproperty

In State v. Chittim, the defendant was cited for a traffic infraction after a trooper observed altered license plates on a vehicle in which Chittim was a passenger; the plates had stickers affixed years earlier that replaced “Vacationland” with other phrases. The District Court entered judgment against Chittim under 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2104(4), and the Superior Court affirmed. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the statute is penal and must be strictly construed, that Chittim had attached the stickers before the law’s 1996 effective date, and that the statute could not be applied retroactively to pre-enactment conduct or impose an ongoing duty to remove stickers from plates no longer in his possession.

criminal law

The case involved Lance Persson appealing a Department of Human Services decision that modified his child support obligations but refused to make the changes retroactive prior to his 1999 notice of intent to seek review, despite his incarceration since 1993. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal as untimely under 5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(3), which requires filing within 30 days of notice. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the dismissal and remanded, concluding the appeal was timely based on the date Persson received notice of the February 2000 agency decision and the rules governing filing of the petition and related forms.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between mortgage holder Ocwen Federal Bank and property owner Anne Gile over whether the Town of Eliot's tax lien on Gile's property was timely perfected under 36 M.R.S.A. §§ 942 and 943, allowing automatic foreclosure that extinguished Ocwen's interest. The District Court denied Ocwen's motion for summary judgment and granted Gile's, ruling that 36 M.R.S.A. § 153(2) extended the thirty-day notice period when the final day fell on a Sunday, making the town's lien certificate filing timely. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded, concluding that the Town is a necessary party under M.R. Civ. P. 19 because it claims an ownership interest in the property through the foreclosure and complete relief cannot be accorded without its participation in the proceedings.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case concerned a post-divorce dispute over the interpretation of a 1990 divorce judgment and settlement agreement dividing Mylon Staples' pension from Champion International. Mylon sought to amend a qualified domestic relations order to limit Ann Staples' share to fifty percent of pension benefits accrued only through the date of divorce, rather than through the date of his retirement. The District Court denied the motion, finding the judgment ambiguous but the settlement agreement clear that Ann would receive half of each monthly payment upon retirement, and the Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reviewed the District Court's decision directly and upheld it, concluding that the parties' agreement resolved the ambiguity and that the divorce court could ratify such an agreement even if it divided post-divorce accruals. The court also noted that Mylon had waived any claim to an evidentiary hearing.

family lawproperty

The case concerned whether a 1999 private law amending the funding formula for the Wells-Ogunquit Community School District violated the unfunded mandates provision of the Maine Constitution by increasing Wells's share of school expenses without state funding. The Superior Court granted summary judgment upholding the law, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. The court held that the constitutional provision bars the state from requiring local units to expand or modify their activities in ways that necessitate additional local expenditures without providing 90% state funding; here, the revised formula merely reallocated existing school district costs between the two towns based partly on student numbers rather than solely on state valuation. The court reasoned that Wells was not required to expand or modify any activities, such as educational programs or services, and that any resulting tax increase did not constitute such a modification because Wells controlled the district's expenditures. The court did not reach issues of standing or the enrolled bill doctrine.

taxes

The case involved an appeal by the mother of Michelle W. from a District Court judgment terminating her parental rights, based on findings of the mother's mental health conditions, history of abusive relationships, substance issues, and inability to meet the special needs of her six-year-old daughter after the Department of Human Services had taken custody. The mother contended that the trial court improperly treated the best interest of the child as the controlling factor in its decision rather than first determining parental unfitness. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the termination judgment, holding that the court erred by reaching the best interest analysis before establishing unfitness and that the error was not harmless because it could have affected the outcome. The court reasoned that termination proceedings require a bifurcated process to ensure the statutory elements of unfitness are addressed independently of best interest considerations.

family lawprocedure

The case involved QAD Investors suing Laurence Kelly to recover on a $20,000 promissory note executed by his joint venture partner Stephen MacKenzie for funds advanced toward purchasing a parking lot; Kelly had not signed the note. The Superior Court found Kelly liable and awarded attorney fees, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. The court reasoned that Kelly's conduct after the note's execution—including making payments in the specified amounts, meeting to discuss and renegotiate the payment schedule, and failing to repudiate the obligation even after seeing the unsigned note—constituted ratification of MacKenzie's authority to bind the partnership. The court also upheld the fee award, concluding the note's collection-costs provision applied to the partnership and that the trial court had discretion to determine a reasonable amount.

business & regulatory

In State v. Burgess, the defendant appealed his convictions for operating a motor vehicle while his license was revoked as a habitual offender and for operating under the influence, following a jury-waived trial. The Superior Court had denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a vehicle stop in an apartment parking lot driveway and his motion for acquittal on the ground that the location was not a public way. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the stop based on a citizen complaint detailing the defendant's prior intoxicated driving and a threat to shoot holes in another vehicle, and that the driveway qualified as a public way under the applicable statute.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the termination of a mother's parental rights to her two children, Scott and Kaleb, and the father's rights to Kaleb, following findings of jeopardy due to the mother's mental health issues, physical abuse, and the father's failure to protect the children. The District Court had terminated the rights after determining that the parents were unfit and that termination served the children's best interests. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that the lower court erred by prioritizing the best interests determination over the statutory requirements for proving parental unfitness under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055. The court reasoned that while best interests are relevant, they cannot take precedence over or substitute for a proper fitness analysis, and this error was not harmless with respect to Kaleb, leading to vacating the judgment in part as to him while affirming the termination of the mother's rights to Scott.

family law