Supreme Court Oral Argument Schedule & Summaries

Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Sitting as the Law Court

Caution: This schedule is subject to change. The case synopses are prepared for the convenience of the public and are not to be construed as statements of the court.

Audio stream of oral arguments available.

As a service to the public, the Supreme Judicial Court provides live streaming of its oral arguments, and streaming of recordings of oral arguments for approximately two weeks after the week of arguments. To listen, go to our streaming page.


July 2017 Session

Thursday, July 6, 2017
Cumberland County Courthouse, Portland
  8:30 a.m.   Yor-16-558   Kittery Point Partners, LLC v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.

Attorneys: Clifford H. Ruprecht, Andrew W. Sparks

The Superior Court granted summary judgment to Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, on the claim of Kittery Point Partners, LLC (KPP), for a declaratory judgment that, because of Bayview’s fraud, KPP did not owe Bayview any money on a “Delinquency Repayment Agreement” that KPP had executed. KPP appeals, claiming that there are disputes of material facts as to Bayview’s fraud and that therefore summary judgment for Bayview was in error.

  9:20 a.m.   BCD-17-15   State of Maine v. Biddeford Internet Corporation

Attorneys: Thomas A. Knowlton; David P. Silk; Benjamin M. Leoni; Rebecca Gray Klotzle

The Business and Consumer Docket (BCD) entered judgment for the ConnectME Authority and against Biddeford Internet Corporation (”Biddeford”) ordering Biddeford to pay the “Broadband Sustainability Fee” imposed by the 2010 Maine “Act to Enable the Installation of Broadband Infrastructure.” The BCD determined that the fee was invalid as a fee but constituted a valid business excise tax.

Biddeford appeals, arguing that (1) ConnectME does not have standing to collect the fee; (2) the BCD erred in determining that the fee is a valid business excise tax because it is not imposed uniformly on all telecommunications providers or “other members of the dark fiber provider industry”; and (3) the fee or tax violates Biddeford’s rights to equal protection and due process.

ConnectME cross-appeals, arguing that the fee is a valid user fee and not a tax, but that the BCD was otherwise correct in its judgment.

  10:10 a.m.   And-17-63   Leah Parsons v. Starvrose Brooks

Attorneys: Jason Dionne, Richard Golden

The District Court granted Leah Parsons de facto parent status as to a biological child of Starvrose Brooks. Brooks appeals, arguing that the District Court erred in (1) finding that Parsons had shown by clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer substantial harm if Parsons were not granted parental rights; (2) imputing to Brooks income based on a 30-hour work week and failing to account for child-care expenses that Brooks would have to pay if he did work that much each week; and (3) declining to recuse given the court’s receipt of evidence in a separate matter involving Brooks.

  11:00 a.m.   Han-17-7   Liberty Natural Products, Inc. v. David Hoffman et al.

Attorneys: Glen L. Porter, Ryan P. Dumais, Andria Y. La Rose, Richard C. Cleary, Robert Van Horn

The Superior Court entered judgment for David and Valerie Hoffman on the claim of Liberty Natural Products to void a fraudulent transfer of real estate from the Hoffmans to Peaceful Properties LLC. The Superior Court found that the Hoffmans had received value for the transfer in the form of a promissory note from Peaceful Properties.

Liberty Natural Products appeals, arguing that the Superior Court erred in concluding that it did not have to determine whether the promissory note was valid in order to find that the promissory note constituted valuable consideration for the transfer of the real estate.