Hollie A. Beal v. Town of Stockton Springs
153 A.3d 768
| Me. | 2017Background
- Hollie Beal owned a small (556 sq ft) building used as a residence at 65 Sandy Point Road; code enforcement inspections in 2014 identified numerous exterior and interior defects.
- After informal discussions and a failed attempt at a consent agreement, the Town’s Board of Selectmen held a public hearing on Nov 20, 2014 to determine whether the structure was a "dangerous building" under 17 M.R.S. § 2851.
- At the November hearing the Board barred direct cross-examination by Beal’s counsel but allowed rebuttal testimony, submission of written questions for the Board to ask witnesses, and summation argument; Beal objected.
- The Board reopened the hearing (Jan and Apr 2015), allowed live cross-examination thereafter, obtained an administrative warrant to inspect the interior, and heard additional testimony and evidence with Beal present (counsel absent at some hearings).
- The Board issued a written order finding multiple structural, plumbing, electrical, and fire-safety hazards and ordered repairs by specified deadlines; the Superior Court affirmed on judicial review, and Beal appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s hearing procedures (no cross-exam Nov. 20) violated due process | Beal: denied opportunity to be heard, cross-examine witnesses, and impartial fact-finder | Town: Beal had opportunity to rebut, submit questions, and the Board later reopened hearings allowing cross-exam; no prejudice shown | No due process violation; reopened hearings cured procedure and Beal failed to show prejudice |
| Whether Board members were biased and should have recused | Beal: prior statements (and CEO letter) showed prejudgment/bias | Town: statements occurred during informal/admin phase; members expressly disavowed prejudice when acting adjudicatively | No disqualifying bias; presumption of integrity unrebutted |
| Whether record contained substantial evidence that the building was "dangerous" | Beal: deficiencies did not meet statutory definition; Town failed burden | Town: CEO testimony and photos showed structural, plumbing, electrical, and fire hazards | Substantial evidence supported Board’s findings and dangerous-building determination |
| Scope of appellate review (whether to confine to Nov. 20 hearing) | Beal: review should be limited to Nov. 20 decision | Town: appeal is from the final May 2015 decision after all hearings | Court reviews final May 2015 decision; not limited to Nov. 20 hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process balancing test)
- In re Maine Clean Fuels, Inc., 310 A.2d 736 (Me. 1973) (administrative hearings need not always permit cross-examination)
- Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 989 A.2d 1128 (Me. 2010) (deferential review of administrative factfinding)
- Kirkpatrick v. City of Bangor, 728 A.2d 1268 (Me. 1999) (property interests require due process)
- Hale v. Petit, 438 A.2d 226 (Me. 1981) (lack of cross-exam not always a due process violation when other means to respond exist)
- Gorham v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 625 A.2d 898 (Me. 1993) (presumption of impartiality for administrative decisionmakers)
- Lane Constr. Corp. v. Town of Wash., 942 A.2d 1202 (Me. 2008) (consideration of informal vs. adjudicatory actions)
- Osprey Family Trust v. Town of Owls Head, 141 A.3d 1114 (Me. 2016) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Baker’s Table, Inc. v. City of Portland, 743 A.2d 237 (Me. 2000) (use of M.R. Civ. P. 80B(d) to supplement record on bias)