214 A.3d 1
Me.2019Background
- MSR Recycling applied for Planning Board site-plan approval in Madison (2012) for a commercial facility to receive vehicles and appliances for recycling; the Planning Board approved the site plan on October 15, 2012.
- Abutters appealed to the Town Board of Appeals (BOA); MSR retained Attorney Matthew Clark to represent it before the BOA and on further appeal.
- The BOA reversed the Planning Board by a 3–2 vote on December 6, 2012, concluding the proposal equated to an automobile/metal recycling (junkyard) use.
- Clark filed an 80B appeal to Superior Court but failed to file a required brief; the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute, and MSR later sued Clark for legal malpractice.
- The Superior Court granted Clark summary judgment, concluding MSR could not show causation because, as a matter of law, the BOA’s decision would have been sustained (the use was a junkyard).
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the summary judgment, holding the operative decision was the Planning Board’s approval (reviewable on 80B), which was supported by substantial evidence; remanded for further proceedings on causation and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney Clark's failure to file a brief deprived MSR of a chance at a more favorable result | Clark’s omission caused loss of opportunity to overturn BOA and reinstate Planning Board approval | Even without Clark’s brief, the operative municipal decision would have been the BOA and its reversal would stand because the use was a junkyard as a matter of law | Vacated summary judgment; court held the operative decision was the Planning Board approval and that MSR raised a triable issue on causation (remanded) |
| What is the operative municipal decision on 80B review: Planning Board or BOA decision? | MSR: Planning Board decision is operative because the BOA acted in an appellate capacity | Clark: the BOA decision is operative (review should focus on BOA’s determination) | Operative decision is the Planning Board approval because BOA performed appellate review; Superior Court should have reviewed Planning Board decision directly |
| Whether the Planning Board’s site-plan approval was supported by substantial evidence | MSR: site plan met ordinance criteria and approval was supported by the record | Town/Clark implied the ultimate use (junkyard) would defeat approval regardless | The record showed the Planning Board’s approval was supported by substantial evidence; focus on junkyard use was erroneous |
| Whether MSR established proximate causation for malpractice at summary judgment | MSR: Clark’s negligence (failure to brief) caused dismissal of 80B appeal and loss of favorable outcome | Clark: even with proper briefing, the result would not have been more favorable because the BOA’s view was correct as matter of law | Court vacated summary judgment and remanded to let the trial court consider causation and damages in light of conclusion that Planning Board approval would have been reinstated on 80B review |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Lemieux, 157 A.3d 798 (Me. 2017) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Niehoff v. Shankman & Assocs. Legal Ctr., P.A., 763 A.2d 121 (Me. 2000) (elements for malpractice from failure to file pleadings: negligence and lost opportunity)
- Fitanides v. City of Saco, 113 A.3d 1088 (Me. 2015) (review of operative municipal decision on 80B)
- Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 868 A.2d 161 (Me. 2005) (whether BOA is acting in appellate capacity determines operative decision)
- Yates v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 763 A.2d 1168 (Me. 2001) (BOA acting as appellate body even if it takes new evidence)
- Olson v. Town of Yarmouth, 179 A.3d 920 (Me. 2018) (scope of superior court review of Planning Board decisions under 80B)
- Pawlendzio v. Haddow, 148 A.3d 713 (Me. 2016) (professional negligence standard)