206 A.3d 902
Me.2019Background
- Mark Rae (defendant) and Laurie Allen (plaintiff) disputed ownership of a ~20-foot strip of land adjacent to their properties; tensions persisted despite law-enforcement involvement.
- Allen parked a boat trailer on the disputed strip; Rae wanted it moved to access his property/bring in equipment.
- Allen testified Rae cut the valve stem on her boat trailer tire; Rae denied cutting it but admitted attempting to move the trailer and finding a boot lock on the tire.
- District Court found Allen credible, Rae not credible, and concluded Rae committed multiple acts of harassment, entering a one-year protection-from-harassment order under 5 M.R.S. §§ 4651–4655.
- On appeal Rae argued the evidence did not support a finding of three or more acts of harassment and claimed a right to remove the trailer; the Court of Appeals affirmed based on a single act of criminal mischief constituting harassment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Allen) | Defendant's Argument (Rae) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rae committed three or more acts of harassment under 5 M.R.S. § 4651(2)(A) | Rae repeatedly engaged in intimidating acts (driving across corner, plowing snow toward house, damaging property) | Only the valve-stem incident is supported; other acts did not cause fear, intimidation, or damage | Court: Insufficient evidence for three or more acts; appellate finding agrees only one proven act |
| Whether a single act of criminal mischief can support a protection order under 5 M.R.S. § 4651(2)(C) | Single intentional property tampering (cutting valve stem) suffices as harassment | If he believed he had a right to remove the trailer, he was justified; act was not criminal mischief | Court: Single act of criminal mischief (tampering with property) proved by preponderance; supports order |
| Whether Rae had reasonable grounds/right to damage the trailer (defense under 17-A M.R.S. § 806(1)(A) / self-help) | N/A (Allen argues conduct was wrongful) | Rae claims he was stopping a trespass and had a right to remove the trailer | Court: Ownership disputed; even if he believed he had rights, manner of removal can be harassment; defense fails as justification for damaging property |
| Whether appellate court may affirm on a different legal ground than trial court used | N/A | Argues appellate affirmation based on a different (single-act) ground improperly substitutes appellate discretion for trial court discretion | Court: Majority affirms because evidence supports single-act basis; dissent would remand so trial court can reexamine its discretionary decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Preston v. Tracy, 942 A.2d 718 (Me. 2008) (appellate review of trial court factual findings for clear error)
- Smith v. Hawthorne, 804 A.2d 1133 (Me. 2002) (trial court's witness-observation role important in protective-order cases)
- Cates v. Donahue, 916 A.2d 941 (Me. 2007) (manner of conduct can constitute harassment even if actor claims legal right)
- Patane v. Brown, 792 A.2d 1086 (Me. 2002) (protection-order may be based on preponderance proof of enumerated criminal offense)
- Sloan v. Christianson, 43 A.3d 978 (Me. 2012) (credibility and weight of testimony are for the fact-finder)
- Fitzpatrick v. McCrary, 182 A.3d 737 (Me. 2018) (statutory "may" vests discretion in trial court)