Malcolm Halliday v. Kathryn W. Henry, 116 A.3d 1270

Malcolm and Ingigerdur Halliday sued neighbors Kathryn Henry and Robert Center under 17 M.R.S. § 2808 (statutory nuisance), alleging runoff from Henry/Center’s 2004 construction damaged the Hallidays’ property.
Construction was completed in 2004; the Town issued a certificate of compliance on January 5, 2005.
The Hallidays first complained about runoff to Henry and Center in spring 2005; defendants’ contractor inspected and defendants added a swale as a precaution.
The Hallidays filed their complaint pro se on June 27, 2013.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the action was time-barred; the Hallidays did not oppose and did not controvert defendants’ supported statements of material fact.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment for defendants on statute-of-limitations grounds; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Hallidays’ statutory nuisance claim is time-barred	The complaint was timely (Hallidays did not meaningfully contest accrual or tolling on summary judgment)	Claim accrued by 2005; limitations (3-yr statutory nuisance or 6-yr general) expired before 2013 filing	Court held claim untimely: accrual no later than 2005; summary judgment affirmed
Whether a continuing nuisance tolls accrual	Hallidays implied the harm continued (but did not present prima facie facts)	No admissible evidence was offered to show a continuing, abatable nuisance that would toll accrual	Court held Hallidays failed to make prima facie showing of continuing nuisance; accrual date not in genuine dispute
Whether failure to receive notice of summary judgment proceeding defeats entry without hearing	Hallidays asserted lack of notice on appeal (not raised below)	Defendants noted no opposition was filed, and rules permit granting motion without hearing for lack of timely opposition	Court declined to consider notice complaint raised first on appeal and noted Hallidays did not seek relief under Rule 60(b); failure to oppose permitted entry without hearing
Whether procedural deficiencies in appellants’ briefing warrant dismissal	Hallidays pro se; appellants’ brief/appendix had defects	Defendants urged dismissal for noncompliance with appellate rules	Court declined to dismiss appeal despite briefing deficiencies

Cote Corp. v. Kelley Earthworks, Inc., 97 A.3d 127 (Me. 2014) (summary judgment standard and deeming facts admitted when uncontroverted)
Dyer v. Dep’t of Transp., 951 A.2d 821 (Me. 2008) (local rule on controverting statements of material fact)
Angell v. Hallee, 36 A.3d 922 (Me. 2012) (plaintiff’s burden to make prima facie showing to toll statute of limitations)
Jacques v. Pioneer Plastics, Inc., 676 A.2d 504 (Me. 1996) (definition and abatable/continuing nuisance principles)
Nevin v. Union Trust Co., 726 A.2d 694 (Me. 1999) (accrual of cause of action occurs when judicially cognizable injury arises)