Paul v. Town of Liberty, 151 A.3d 924

The Pauls own property accessed by Bolin Hill Road in Liberty; the Town failed to maintain the road and the Select Board voted on December 29, 2014 that the upper portion had been abandoned under 23 M.R.S. § 3028(2).
The Pauls filed a two‑count Superior Court complaint (Feb 27, 2015): Count I sought review under M.R. Civ. P. 80B of the Board’s abandonment determination; Count II sought damages under 23 M.R.S. § 3029.
The Town moved to dismiss as untimely (Rule 80B requires filing within 30 days when no statute provides a limit) and argued § 3029 did not authorize damages here.
The Pauls moved for leave to amend Count I to plead a declaratory judgment action instead of a Rule 80B appeal.
The Superior Court dismissed both counts and denied leave to amend, concluding Rule 80B was the proper vehicle and § 3029 did not permit damages; the Pauls appealed.
The Law Court vacated the denial of leave to amend (remanding for consideration consistent with the opinion) but affirmed dismissal of Counts I and II.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a plaintiff may use declaratory judgment to challenge a road‑abandonment determination under § 3028	Pauls: § 3028 expressly allows declaratory relief to resolve abandonment status; amendment should be allowed	Town: Rule 80B (via § 3029) is the exclusive remedy for challenging municipal determinations; declaratory relief would circumvent time limits	Held: § 3028 specifically authorizes declaratory relief for abandonment matters; declaratory action is appropriate and distinct from Rule 80B review; denying leave to amend on that ground was error
Whether the Rule 80B appeal was timely	Pauls: filed Feb 27, 2015 — implied challenge to timing or reliance on other procedures	Town: Board voted Dec 29, 2014; Rule 80B thirty‑day period applied because no statutory limit; appeal untimely	Held: Rule 80B appeal (Count I) was untimely (should have been filed by Jan 28, 2015); dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed
Whether § 3029 alone creates a standalone cause of action for damages from abandonment	Pauls: sought damages under § 3029 based on property devaluation from abandonment	Town: § 3029 permits appeal of damages awarded under other sections of chapter 304, not an independent damages cause of action for § 3028 abandonment	Held: § 3029 is procedural — it allows de novo review of damages where an underlying provision authorizes damages; § 3028 does not provide for damages, so Count II fails and dismissal affirmed

Colby v. York Cty. Comm’rs, 442 A.2d 544 (Me. 1982) (recognizes exclusivity of direct review but allows exceptions when direct review is inadequate)
Frustaci v. City of S. Portland, 879 A.2d 1001 (Me. 2005) (§ 3029 permits de novo Superior Court determination of damages where an underlying chapter 304 provision authorizes damages)
Gorham v. Androscoggin Cty., 21 A.3d 115 (Me. 2011) (interpretation of when Rule 80B timing begins; notice occurs when the decisional action is complete as required by statute)