Leigh I. Saufley

This case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners in Owls Head, Maine, where the Weinsteins claimed ownership of a portion of waterfront land known as Cliff Street through adverse possession, despite the Hurlberts holding record title. The trial court ruled in favor of the Weinsteins, finding that their and their predecessors' maintenance of the land satisfied the elements of adverse possession. On appeal, the court vacated the judgment, holding that the Weinsteins failed to prove the required elements of hostile and notorious use. The reasoning centered on the fact that the activities, primarily seasonal lawn mowing and occasional planting, were insufficient to notify the record owners of an antagonistic claim, consistent with the policy disfavoring adverse possession and local traditions regarding open land use.

property

In Gray v. TD Bank, the plaintiff sued the bank after losing a probate court case over ownership of funds in a joint checking account, claiming the bank failed to retain records proving his joint ownership, leading to claims of breach of contract, negligence, and punitive damages. The court affirmed dismissal of the contract and punitive damages claims but allowed the negligence claim to proceed. It reasoned that collateral estoppel prevented relitigation of the account ownership issue central to the contract claim, as it had been fully litigated in probate court, but the negligence claim raised separate questions about the bank's record-keeping duties that were not previously decided. Punitive damages were not supported by the alleged conduct.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Rogers Harrell's appeal from his conviction for domestic violence assault, where the trial court imposed a seven-month jail sentence and a $300 fine, believing the fine to be mandatory under the statute. The court decided to vacate the fine, agreeing with Harrell and the State that the domestic violence assault statute does not incorporate the mandatory minimum fine from the simple assault statute. The core reasoning was that the domestic-violence-assault statute is ambiguous regarding penalties and does not prescribe a specific fine, so the rule of lenity requires interpreting it to not carry a mandatory minimum fine, allowing the court to consider the offender's financial capacity.

criminal lawprocedure

Timothy Daniels sued his former employers, Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility and North Country Associates, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Maine Human Rights Act after he suffered work-related shoulder injuries, requested light-duty accommodations, filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, and was later disciplined and terminated. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, but the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated that judgment. The court held that the summary judgment record presented genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the employers' performance criticisms, discipline, and termination decisions were motivated by Daniels's disability or his protected activity of filing the discrimination complaint, including evidence of an email directing close monitoring because of the lawsuit and questions about the involvement of North Country personnel.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned a land use dispute over Pike Industries' operation and proposed expansion of a quarry in Westbrook, including whether it had grandfathered rights under successive zoning ordinances and challenges to permits for blasting and related activities. After the Zoning Board of Appeals ruled against grandfathered rights and the Superior Court affirmed that decision in Pike's Rule 80B appeal, Pike, the City, and IDEXX negotiated a consent decree that treated quarrying as a permitted grandfathered use subject to performance standards, which the court approved as a final judgment resolving equitable claims and the City's counterclaim. The Law Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings, on the grounds that the consent decree improperly functioned as contract zoning or an amendment to the zoning ordinance without compliance with required municipal procedures and public processes.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a post-divorce dispute between Andrew Desmond, a U.S. Marine stationed in Japan, and his former wife Abby over arranging an eight-week summer visit for their son with his father following a prior court order for meaningful contact. After multiple case management conferences, the District Court determined that the visit could not occur due to delays in required medical paperwork and the father's duty schedule, and it terminated the guardian ad litem's services. Andrew appealed, arguing errors in the court's handling of the visit arrangements and GAL dismissal. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order, finding that reasonable efforts had been made by the court and mother to facilitate the visit, that the father had declined alternatives, and that the court acted within its discretion in considering financial factors when ending the GAL appointment under 19-A M.R.S. § 1507.

family law

This case involved neighboring property owners challenging the City of Saco's approval of a contract zoning agreement that permitted a developer to create a denser fourteen-lot residential subdivision on a former inn property next to a public beach, along with the subsequent planning board approval of the subdivision plan. The agreement included off-site conditions such as conveying beach land for public use, improving parking and restrooms, and contributing $100,000 for a sidewalk. The Superior Court dismissed three counts, granted summary judgment to the city on the statutory compliance claim, and affirmed the board's decision. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the conditions reasonably related to the physical development and operation of the rezoned property given its historic public beach access, satisfying the requirements of 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8)(C).

propertybusiness & regulatory

Covanta Maine, LLC appealed orders from the Maine Public Utilities Commission denying certification of two biomass facilities as Class I new renewable resources under 35-A M.R.S. § 3210 and related rules, asserting that post-2005 investments qualified the plants as refurbished. The Commission had concluded the facilities did not meet the refurbished standard primarily because expenditures were not sufficiently substantial relative to the overall value of the plants. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reversed, holding that the Commission improperly relied on a ratio-based analysis not required by the statute, which instead focuses on whether refurbishment allowed operation beyond the previous useful life.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Herzog, Richard Herzog appealed his conviction for domestic violence assault (Class D) after a bench trial in which the court found he struck his wife during an argument at their home, rejecting his self-defense claim. The trial court credited the wife's testimony that she used reasonable force to get past him and that he was the aggressor, sentencing him to a suspended jail term and two years of probation. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the trial court correctly determined self-defense was at issue and that the State disproved it beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence and credibility determinations. The court modified the sentence to reduce probation to one year because the original term exceeded the statutory maximum without the prerequisite completion of a batterers' intervention program.

criminal lawfamily law

In Akers v. Akers, the father appealed a district court ruling on cross-motions to modify a stipulated divorce judgment, which maintained primary residence of the parties' daughter with the mother during the school year following the mother's move and ordered the father to pay child support. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the evidence on the child's best interests under 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3) or in computing child support, as its factual findings on factors such as stability, living arrangements, and parental relationships were supported by competent record evidence, and an alleged calculation error had not been preserved for appeal.

family law

This case involved a post-divorce dispute over parental rights and responsibilities for a young child. After the 2008 divorce judgment awarded shared rights with primary residence to the mother, the father moved to modify it, alleging the mother had taken steps to alienate the child from him, including repeated unsubstantiated abuse claims and coaching the child. The District Court granted the motion, awarding sole parental rights and primary residence to the father based on findings that the mother's allegations were not credible and that she had coached the child. The mother appealed, challenging the court's factual findings, credibility determinations regarding the guardian ad litem, and other aspects of the ruling. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by competent evidence in the record and that there was no clear error.

family law

The case involved lot owners in a private subdivision who sought a declaratory judgment on whether they could form a statutory road association under 23 M.R.S. § 3101 to maintain subdivision roads and whether they were bound by recorded restrictive covenants requiring annual road maintenance fees to Pine Springs Road and Water, LLC (PSRW). The Superior Court ruled that the lot owners could not form such an association because their properties were not benefited by easements and the roads did not qualify as private ways under the statute, and that the covenants were binding. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the lot owners' deeds granted express easements over the subdivision roads, qualifying them to form a road association, and that the fee obligations had expired by their terms in 1980 or did not apply to these owners due to the timing of conveyances, dissolution of prior entities, and lack of reference in their deeds. The core reasoning centered on interpreting the deeds, recorded minutes establishing covenants, and the statutory requirements for road associations.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Timothy Mooney's appeal from his conviction for trafficking in prison contraband following a jury trial. Mooney challenged the admission of testimony from a corrections officer regarding details not included in her incident report, as well as testimony from an investigator about potential additional assault charges that could have been pursued if another inmate had cooperated with the investigation. The court held that the officer's testimony was properly admitted but that the investigator's testimony was inadmissible because it was speculative and not based on personal knowledge. Because the error in admitting the investigator's testimony was not harmless, the court vacated the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In Douglas v. Douglas, the District Court granted Paul Douglas’s motion to modify the 2008 divorce judgment that had awarded Lisa Douglas sole parental rights and responsibilities due to allegations of sexual abuse and other concerns; the modification allowed for a gradual, supervised, therapeutic reunification process between Paul and their son after the criminal charges against Paul were dismissed and he completed evaluations and counseling. Lisa appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in ordering reunification and erred in approving the guardian ad litem (GAL) fees. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the modification order, finding a substantial change in circumstances based on the dismissal of charges, Paul’s therapy and evaluations showing no substantiated abuse risk, and other developments, but vacated the portion of the order allocating GAL fees because the trial court failed to make required findings on the reasonableness of the fees and the parties’ ability to pay under 19-A M.R.S. § 1507(7).

family lawprocedure

Mercy Hospital appealed an order from the Unified Criminal Docket denying its motion for a protective order regarding several witnesses in the criminal case State v. Weidul, asserting statutory privileges for sentinel event notifications and professional competence review records. The appeal was taken from an interlocutory order rather than a final judgment. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no exception to the final judgment rule applied based on precedent and policy considerations regarding legal process.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a police stop of Cory LaForge's vehicle in Bar Harbor after an officer observed six line violations over four miles on a winding road, leading to charges of operating under the influence. The District Court granted LaForge's motion to suppress evidence from the stop, concluding that the violations were trivial and did not create an objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct under the totality of circumstances. On appeal by the State, the court vacated the suppression order, ruling that the multiple observed crossings of the centerline and fog line, occurring in distinct groups, met the low threshold for reasonable articulable suspicion of impairment. The decision relied on precedents such as State v. Pelletier and State v. Porter, which found similar observations sufficient to justify an investigatory stop without requiring a mechanical standard or probable cause.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kirk E. Gould's conviction for gross sexual assault (Class A) and gross sexual assault (Class B) based on allegations that he sexually abused his stepdaughter from age eleven until age sixteen. Gould appealed the Superior Court's denial of his motion to suppress his confession, denial of a new trial and sanctions for a discovery violation involving a forensic lab report on bedding samples, and other claims including prosecutorial misstatement in closing argument. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. The court reasoned that the recorded interrogation was conversational and relaxed with no promises of leniency, rendering the confession voluntary; the lab report was provided before trial, was not exculpatory, and caused no prejudice or Brady violation; and Gould's remaining claims lacked merit.

criminal lawprocedure

In Nader v. Maine Democratic Party, Ralph Nader and his Maine presidential electors sued the Maine Democratic Party, Democratic National Committee, and related individuals and groups, alleging civil conspiracy, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. The claims arose from the defendants' filing of twenty-nine complaints in multiple states and with the FEC during the 2004 election cycle, which Nader asserted were baseless efforts to drain his campaign's resources and keep him off the ballot. The Superior Court granted the defendants' special motions to dismiss under Maine's anti-SLAPP statute, 14 M.R.S. § 556. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the dismissals, holding that the anti-SLAPP statute cannot be used to dismiss claims of abuse of process without first allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to establish a prima facie case supporting those claims, because petitioning activity under the First Amendment is not automatically protected when it may constitute a sham. The court also vacated an award of attorney fees tied to the dismissed motions.

electionsfree speechproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Jack D. Bailey II's appeal from convictions on ten counts of gross sexual assault and two counts of unlawful sexual contact. Bailey argued that live-witness testimony identifying the victims should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search of his home computer and residence that violated the Fourth Amendment and the Maine Constitution. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court correctly denied suppression of the testimony even though it suppressed the physical evidence from the search. The court applied the attenuation factors from United States v. Ceccolini and concluded that the connection between the illegal search and the subsequent witness identifications and statements was sufficiently attenuated to permit admission of the testimony.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Friends of the Boundary Mountains appealing the Land Use Regulation Commission's approval of a permit for TransCanada to build a wind energy facility in Franklin County, Maine. The appellants challenged LURC's decision not to hold an additional public hearing on an amended application, alleged violations of procedural rules, and disputed the finding that the project would provide significant tangible benefits. The court affirmed the decision, holding that LURC had discretion under its rules to forgo a new hearing and that its interpretation of tangible benefits, including economic impacts and grants, was reasonable and supported by the record.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure