MacImage of Maine, LLC v. Androscoggin County
2012 ME 44
| Me. | 2012Background
- MacImage of Maine, LLC. and Simpson sought bulk electronic copies of all county registry of deeds documents and indexes from six Maine counties.
- Counties offered electronic copies of land records with various per-page and bulk transfer fees; two counties did not offer index copies for a fee.
- Requests occurred when copying statutes contemplated paper copies; bulk electronic data was a novel issue not addressed by preexisting fee rules.
- The Superior Court held that the counties denied access by charging unreasonable fees and that a 2009 statute governed at the time of the requests, not retroactive legislation.
- Before trial, the Legislature enacted P.L. 2011, ch. 378, which repealed § 751(14) and created new §§ 751(14-B) and (14-C) with retroactive applicability to September 1, 2009, and set specific digital copy fees.
- The Legislature’s retroactive act required evaluation of whether the counties charged reasonable digital copy fees under the new framework; the court vacated and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the new law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive applicability of the 2011 Act | MacImage contends retroactivity should apply to pending requests. | Counties argue retroactivity should not affect ongoing disputes. | retroactive scope upheld; law applies to pending requests. |
| Governing standard for bulk digital copy fees | MacImage seeks fees based on actual copying costs without broader regulatory guidance. | Legislation provides specific factors and caps for digital copies; governs reasonableness. | New § 751(14-B)/(14-C) govern reasonableness of bulk digital copy fees. |
| Constitutional challenges to retroactivity | Retroactive fees may violate separation of powers, due process, equal protection, or takings. | Legislation is a rational balance of public access and costs; not unconstitutional. | No separation, due process, equal protection, or takings violations; rational basis. |
| Application to the six counties | Fees should reflect digital bulk transfer costs uniformly. | Some counties offered bulk digital copies within the new caps; others require further proceedings for indexes. | Remand for four counties with compliant bulk digital copy fees; remand for two counties lacking index copies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernier v. Data Gen. Corp., 2002 ME 2 (Me. 2002) (legislative retroactivity can accompany pending proceedings)
- Morrill v. Me. Turnpike Auth., 2009 ME 116 (Me. 2009) (legislature may apply retroactively where appropriate)
- United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103 (U.S. 1801) (new law may govern after judgment when applicable to the case)
- State v. L.V.I. Group, 1997 ME 25 (Me. 1997) (legislative changes to remedies and procedures may be permissible)
- Town of Frye Island v. State, 2008 ME 27 (Me. 2008) (equal protection review under rational basis standard)
- Bagley v. Raymond Sch. Dep't, 1999 ME 60 (Me. 1999) (rational basis review defers to legislative policy choices)