Brunswick Citizens for Collaborative Gov't v. Town of Brunswick, 189 A.3d 248

Town of Brunswick acquired waterfront property at 946 Mere Point Road via tax-foreclosure in 2011 and the Town Council voted to sell it on Sept. 19, 2016; sale closed June 15, 2017.
Five residents circulated initiative petitions (returned Jan. 27, 2017) seeking an ordinance to require the Town to retain the parcel as a public park and shellfishing access point.
The Town Council declined to hold a public hearing on the proposed initiative and voted to take no further action on the petition.
Citizens (Brunswick Citizens for Collaborative Government, Robert Baskett, and Soxna Dice) filed an M.R. Civ. P. 80B petition challenging the Council’s refusal and a declaratory-judgment complaint seeking a ruling that the Charter permits voters to enact an initiative overturning the Council’s sale decision.
The Superior Court found the Rule 80B petition moot because the property had been sold but issued a declaratory judgment holding that the Charter does not authorize an initiative to overturn the Council’s sale vote; Citizens appealed.
The Law Court affirmed mootness of the Rule 80B petition, vacated the declaratory judgment as moot, and remanded with instruction to dismiss the entire complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule 80B petition and declaratory action remained justiciable after the property sale	The sale did not moote the legal question about voters’ initiative power; court should decide the charter interpretation	Sale rendered any relief meaningless; case is moot	Moot: sale rendered petition and declaratory claim non-justiciable; dismissal required
Whether voters may use initiative to overturn a Council vote to sell municipal property	Charter’s initiative power allows voters to enact an ordinance that would effectively overturn the Council’s sale decision	Petition sought to override an act of Council and was therefore a referendum in form; Charter allows referendum only to override ordinances, not Council votes to sell property	Court declined to reach merits due to mootness, but vacated earlier declaratory judgment; remanded for dismissal
Whether "questions of great public concern" exception applies to permit review despite mootness	Issue implicates public rights and future guidance so exception should apply	The issue is narrow/local; ruling would have little authoritative value and is unlikely to recur	Exception did not apply; no basis to decide merits
Whether any other mootness exceptions (collateral consequences; capable of repetition yet evading review) apply	Plaintiffs asserted none; impliedly argued need for declaration	Town argued no applicable exceptions	No exceptions applied; dismissal ordered

Lewiston Daily Sun v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 43, 738 A.2d 1239 (Me. 1999) (courts may only decide justiciable controversies; Declaratory Judgments Act does not override mootness)
Witham Family Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Bar Harbor, 110 A.3d 642 (Me. 2015) (no practical effect from litigation outcome supports mootness)
McGettigan v. Town of Freeport, 39 A.3d 48 (Me. 2012) (justiciability reviewed de novo)
Halfway House, Inc. v. City of Portland, 670 A.2d 1377 (Me. 1996) (sale of property can render appeal from permit decision moot)
Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 136 A.3d 714 (Me. 2016) (framework for evaluating "great public concern" exception to mootness)
Ten Voters of the City of Biddeford v. City of Biddeford, 822 A.2d 1196 (Me. 2003) (possibility of future discouragement of voters insufficient to justify judicial intervention)