153 A.3d 102
Me.2017Background
- In 2011 Emma’s husband petitioned for appointment as her guardian and conservator; inventories and accounts were filed reflecting estate assets and values.
- After the husband died, Emma’s son became conservator and filed updated inventories showing increased estate value and later an amended inventory.
- In August 2015 the conservator moved to remove financial details from the publicly available online probate docket under M.R. Prob. P. 92.12; the motion was summarily denied and a reconsideration was sought.
- The conservator requested removal as an ADA accommodation; the Probate Court provisionally removed summary numbers from the online docket pending resolution and reported a broader question to the Law Court under M.R. App. P. 24(a).
- The Probate Court asked whether document images or summary financial numbers from conservatorship inventories/accounts should be available online, publicly only at court, neither, or under a different policy.
- The Law Court considered whether to accept the reported question for decision and ultimately declined, discharging the report and declining to issue an advisory ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Law Court should answer Probate Court’s reported question about online availability of conservatorship financial records | Conservator (appellant) sought narrower online disclosure or removal as ADA accommodation to protect financial privacy | Maine Freedom of Information Coalition (appellee) supported public online access to probate records and docket information | Court declined to answer the reported question — discharged the report as improper advisory rulemaking and potentially moot |
| Whether Rule 24 interlocutory reporting is appropriate here | Conservator argued need for guidance to protect privacy in electronic records | FOIC argued public access interests and existing practice differences among counties | Court held Rule 24 not appropriate: the question is policy-heavy, better suited for rulemaking, and may be mooted by other legal bases (e.g., ADA) |
| Whether a decision now would finally resolve the probate dispute | Conservator sought resolution limiting online disclosure to resolve privacy concern | FOIC urged operative public-access rules govern and issue should be decided only in proper appellate context | Court held an answer would not resolve substantive estate/accounting issues and thus would be piecemeal/advisory |
| Whether ADA grounds could independently justify restricting online disclosure | Conservator raised ADA accommodation request to remove online summary numbers | FOIC disputed that ADA warranted blanket removal from public online dockets | Court noted ADA-based rulings might render the reported question moot and should be resolved in the lower court or on appeal from final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Littlebrook Airpark Condo. Ass’n v. Sweet Peas, LLC, 81 A.3d 348 (2013 ME) (sets factors for accepting reported interlocutory questions under Rule 24 and cautions against advisory opinions)