Robert W. Clifford

This case concerns a law firm seeking to quash a subpoena issued by Bar Counsel to the firm's former general counsel for documents related to an internal investigation of a disbarred partner's misconduct and the firm's handling of it, which the firm asserted were shielded by attorney-client privilege. Bar Counsel argued that the crime-fraud exception under Maine Rule of Evidence 502(d)(1) eliminated any privilege because the documents might reveal criminal conduct. A single justice denied the motion to quash after in-camera review, concluding the exception applied to all documents. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the order and remanded, holding that it could not determine from the ruling whether the proper standard for the exception had been used, including the required prima facie showing of intent to use legal services to further crime or fraud.

procedurecriminal law

This case involved a dispute between the City of Portland and the Portland Company over the city's condemnation of the company's non-fee track rights or easement on three waterfront parcels (A-1, A-2, and A-3) to facilitate development including parking garages and street extensions. The Superior Court had addressed claims of an unconstitutional taking, and on appeal the Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the Portland Company possessed a valid property interest, the takings were for a public use supported by exigent circumstances, the company had waived its coercion claim via stipulation, and it was not entitled to attorney fees or costs. The court vacated the judgment only as to parcel A-3 for entry of an order affirming the condemnation and otherwise affirmed the lower court's rulings. The core reasoning rested on prior judicial findings that the rights had not been abandoned, the development plans served public purposes like increased parking and commercial access, and procedural bars prevented additional relief.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a legal malpractice claim by Paul and Angeline Garland against attorney Peter Roy and his firm, arising from Roy's representation of the Garlands in a prior land boundary dispute with neighbor Robert Millot over a lakeside parcel and red camp that the Garlands claimed by purchase and the neighbor by adverse possession. After a jury found Roy negligent and awarded damages for the lost property value plus emotional distress to Paul, the trial court granted judgment as a matter of law setting aside the property damages. On appeal, the court held that sufficient evidence supported the malpractice finding, that the property value award was properly supported by testimony and should be reinstated for both Garlands, and that emotional distress damages must be vacated because they are unavailable in legal malpractice actions limited to economic loss absent egregious conduct.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Holland, the defendant was convicted of criminal mischief after cutting down trees on disputed property, resulting in damage to a neighbor's car. Holland appealed, arguing that the court erred by denying his challenge to the racial composition of the jury pool in Androscoggin County, by denying some of his challenges for cause to individual jurors during voir dire, and by refusing his requested jury instruction on the competing harms defense. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that statistical evidence failed to show a constitutionally significant underrepresentation of African Americans in the jury pool, that the trial court properly managed the for-cause challenges, and that there was no error in denying the requested instruction. The decision focused on Sixth Amendment fair cross-section requirements, equal protection principles, and the application of Maine's jury selection statutes.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Fiber Materials, Inc. sued its former president Maurice Subilia and others, alleging fraud and that Subilia secretly competed with the company and deprived it of opportunities while still serving as president. Subilia appealed from the Business and Consumer Docket's denial of his motions to strike three paragraphs of the complaint and to disqualify FMI's attorneys, arguing that FMI improperly used a privileged Verrill Dana memorandum discovered on his company-issued laptop. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine dismissed the appeal, concluding that it was interlocutory and that no exception to the final judgment rule applied. The court noted FMI's handling of the memo but did not resolve the underlying privilege or disqualification issues.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves David Catlett's appeal from a divorce judgment entered by the District Court in Presque Isle, Maine, regarding the division of marital property, including the Chapman Farm, findings on economic misconduct, spousal support, and the adoption of the proposed judgment. The court affirmed the divorce judgment, holding that the trial court's findings that the Chapman Farm was nonmarital property and that Carla did not engage in economic misconduct were not erroneous. The court also determined that the trial court properly applied the relevant statutes, 19-A M.R.S. § 953 for property division and 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A for spousal support, in reaching its decisions.

family law

The case concerned whether Frank Connolly and Kathryn McCatherin held an implied quasi-easement allowing them to cross Maine Central Railroad's property to access the southern portion of their land, based on prior use by previous owners after the land was bisected by a railroad conveyance in 1850. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to Connolly and McCatherin, declaring the existence of the easement. On appeal, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for trial, reasoning that the summary judgment record did not conclusively establish the original grantor's intent to create an easement, leaving a genuine issue of material fact on that element of the claim.

property

This case involved the conviction of lobster fisherman Dale Richard Weeks for possessing four female lobsters with mutilated right center flippers in violation of Maine's v-notch protection law under 12 M.R.S. § 6436(1)(B), a Class D crime intended to safeguard breeding stock. After a bench trial, the District Court found Weeks guilty on four counts, fining him $250, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that the strict-liability statute prohibits possession of any female lobster mutilated in a manner that could hide or obliterate a v-notch mark, without exception for naturally regenerated flippers after molting, because the plain language and regulatory scheme apply regardless of regeneration.

criminal lawenvironment

The case involved Kathleen Kelley's appeal from a Superior Court judgment affirming the Maine Public Employees Retirement System Board's decision to discontinue her disability retirement benefits. The Board had determined after periodic reviews that Kelley failed to prove she remained unable to engage in substantially gainful activity, based on medical board memoranda concluding she had a full-time sedentary work capacity and a labor market survey identifying available positions matching her limitations. Kelley argued that the Board erred by not ordering an independent medical examination, that it was collaterally estopped by a prior 1998 determination, that she should have been allowed to cross-examine the medical board, and that the hearing officer's recommendation should have been adopted. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Board committed no procedural or substantive errors and that the evidence supported termination of benefits under the applicable statute.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Clarence Dore suing his granddaughter Elizabeth Dore and Countrywide Home Loans after Elizabeth used a durable power of attorney to transfer title to Clarence's home to herself and then mortgaged the property. Following Clarence's death, his estate was substituted as plaintiff, and the trial court entered a default judgment against Elizabeth due to difficulties with service of process; her later motion to set aside the default was denied. Elizabeth appealed the denial, but the court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. The core reasoning was that appeals require a final judgment resolving all claims as to all parties, the default judgment here was interlocutory because claims involving Countrywide remained pending, and no exceptions to the final judgment rule applied.

procedureproperty

The case involved the termination of a mother's parental rights to her two sons after the Department of Health and Human Services petitioned the court, alleging risk of harm due to her mental health issues. The District Court terminated her rights at a non-evidentiary docket call proceeding based on her failure to appear, which it treated as abandonment under 22 M.R.S. § 4055, despite her attorney's request for a continuance and objection. The mother appealed, arguing violations of due process and that her nonappearance did not constitute statutory abandonment. The State conceded the error, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that termination requires an evidentiary hearing to establish parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence and that the mother's constitutional right to be heard was denied. The matter was remanded for a proper evidentiary hearing on the termination petition.

family lawprocedure

The case involved the City of South Portland seeking indemnification from its insurer, the Maine Municipal Association (MMA), for a $380,000 judgment paid to property owner Joseph Frustaci after the City discontinued two roads abutting his land. Frustaci recovered damages solely under the statutory provision 23 M.R.S. § 3029 following dismissal of his related takings and inverse condemnation claims. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to MMA, concluding that the policy's inverse condemnation exclusion barred coverage. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, ruling that the exclusion did not clearly apply because the statutory claim was legally independent of inverse condemnation principles, and any ambiguity in the insurance policy must be resolved in favor of the insured.

propertyprocedure

In this case, Camden National Bank sued to foreclose on a construction loan made to Crest Construction, Inc., after which co-owner Anne Morrow filed counterclaims alleging the bank was negligent and breached a fiduciary or confidential duty by approving the loan despite known risks with the builder. The jury found for Morrow on those claims and awarded damages, but the trial court had granted the bank judgment as a matter of law on her other claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and implied agency. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of the good-faith and agency claims, holding that the transaction was not governed by the UCC and that no agency relationship existed. It vacated the judgment on the negligence and fiduciary-duty counterclaims, ruling that a mortgagee owes no duty to a mortgagor who is not the borrower and that no fiduciary or confidential relationship arose here, then remanded for entry of judgment for the bank.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case arose after Nahabet Cimenian was unable to pursue claims against William Lumb following William's bankruptcy discharge; Cimenian instead filed suit against William's wife, Carolie Lumb, asserting counts including fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and requests for a constructive trust and accounting related to a beach house that had been held in William's name as part of a murky partnership transaction. The trial court granted summary judgment on two counts and, after a bench trial, entered judgment for Lumb on the remaining counts, finding the claims baseless and without merit. Lumb then moved for attorney fees, which the court awarded in the amount of $50,146.25 after finding the suit frivolous, intended to harass, and brought in bad faith, including Cimenian's untruthful testimony. On appeal, Cimenian challenged only the fee award; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the record supported a finding of significant bad faith and extraordinary circumstances warranting sanctions under the court's inherent authority to depart from the American Rule.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In Cole v. Cushman, the case concerned a child custody dispute between parents residing in Maine and Alabama, where the Maine District Court had issued an initial custody order but later relinquished jurisdiction to an Alabama court based on a letter from an Alabama judge indicating it had assumed jurisdiction. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the District Court's judgment, ruling that Maine retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because one parent continues to reside in the state. The court reasoned that another state may not modify the custody determination unless Maine properly declines to exercise its jurisdiction after considering the statutory inconvenient forum factors, and that the lower court had failed to provide the mother due process by not allowing her to present facts and arguments before ceding jurisdiction.

family lawprocedure

In Walsh v. Cusack, the parties appealed from a Superior Court judgment modifying their 1991 divorce decree, which found that James Cusack owed Patricia Walsh $14,040 in past-due child support and ordered him to pay it in weekly installments. The court affirmed the modification and arrearage calculation but addressed whether Walsh was entitled to post-judgment interest on the arrearage under Maine's statute, 14 M.R.S. § 1602-C. The Law Court held that interest is mandatory absent an express waiver for good cause, but because Walsh did not request interest on each individual missed payment with supporting evidence of due dates and applicable rates, she was limited to interest accruing only from the date of the arrearage judgment. The court therefore vacated the judgment solely as to the omission of post-judgment interest and remanded for the trial court to state the applicable rate or address any waiver.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners, the Labontes and the Thurlows, over reimbursement for the costs of constructing a shared driveway easement serving their lots and a third parcel. The Labontes, who built first, sued seeking one-third of the driveway costs pursuant to covenants in both parties' deeds. The Superior Court entered judgment for the Thurlows on that claim, reasoning that the original developer or prior owner bore the obligation. On appeal, the court vacated the judgment, holding that the deed language was unambiguous and required the Thurlows to reimburse one-third of the common driveway portion once they began construction on their lot. The matter was remanded to determine the precise amount owed based on the defined common area.

property

The case involved homeowners who sued a contractor for breach of contract and unfair trade practices after the contractor stopped work on a home addition without providing a satisfactory accounting. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the contractor on the ground that the claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations, as the homeowners' awareness of the alleged breach was shown by their attorney's May 1999 letter. The court also denied the homeowners' motions to amend the complaint to allege fraudulent concealment and for relief from judgment, finding no basis to extend the filing deadline. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the cause of action accrued no later than May 1999 and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion.

procedure

The case Smith v. Padolko involved a post-divorce motion to modify primary residence of two minor children and a contempt motion after the mother relocated with the children to Ohio without proper notice to the father as required by the original divorce judgment. The District Court awarded primary residence to the father, shared parental rights, a visitation schedule, and partial attorney fees to the father after finding the mother in contempt. The court reasoned that the mother's sudden move, lack of consultation, and false testimony about the timing supported a change in circumstances and that the children's best interests favored primary residence with the father based on the guardian ad litem recommendation and need for a strong bond with both parents. It considered the father's threatening phone call but found the mother did not misuse the protection order process, and it accounted for the mother's financial situation in the fee award. The appeals court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the custody modification or attorney fees.

family law

In Preston v. Tracy, Kelly Preston appealed the District Court's dismissal of her complaint for protection from abuse against her ex-husband William Tracy, filed on behalf of herself and their three children based on allegations of past sexual abuse, physical abuse, and threats. After a contested hearing, the trial court found Preston failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and determined by clear and convincing evidence that she had willfully misused the protection from abuse process to gain an advantage in an anticipated parental rights modification proceeding. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court modified the judgment by reducing the misuse finding to a preponderance standard and striking the reference to the best-interest factors in 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3), while affirming the dismissal and the modified findings. The court reasoned that the trial court's credibility assessments and factual findings were supported by the record, but the higher evidentiary standard and statutory linkage were improper outside a parental rights proceeding. The case centered on the sufficiency of evidence in abuse protection matters and the proper scope of misuse findings.

family lawprocedure