Town of China v. Albert Althenn, 2013 ME 107

Albert W. Althenn was found by the District Court to maintain an automobile graveyard in violation of 30-A M.R.S. § 3753 and to remove or store three vehicles with civil penalties and attorney fees awarded to the Town.
Four vehicles were identified on Althenn’s property: a 1978 GMC Grumman box van (antique auto), a 1962 GMC C60 truck, a 1984 3/4-ton truck, and the body of a 1978 Ford van; no permit for an automobile graveyard existed.
The box van was certified as an antique auto by the Secretary of State and retained use for transporting/storing sports cars; other vehicles were not shown to be actively used in exhibitions or public events.
Althenn argued some vehicles, including the 3/4-ton truck, were used for logging or could be exempt from registration; the trial court rejected these defenses and found only the box van qualified as antique auto.
The court ordered removal of the three non-antique vehicles or storage inside a building and awarded a civil penalty of $1,500 plus $8,509.46 in fees; the judgment was amended later to reflect removal/storage of three vehicles only.
The Town cross-appealed on attorney fees; the trial court denied additional fees, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment and fee-denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the antique auto standard was correctly applied.	Althenn argues the court set a higher standard than the statute requires.	Town argues the court properly interpreted the statute and applied it to the facts.	Statutory meaning was applied correctly; findings supported by evidence; no clear error.
Whether the 3/4-ton truck was properly not treated as a logging tractor.	Althenn contends the truck met or was exempt as a logging tractor.	Town asserts the truck was not exclusively a logging vehicle and was not within the exemption.	Not clearly erroneous; the truck was not solely a logging vehicle.
Whether the 1962 GMC truck was an altered vehicle, precluding antique auto status, based on interrogatory	Althenn challenges the admissibility of the interrogatory answer as lay opinion.	Town argues the answer is admissible and helpful to determine alteration; no objection at trial.	Interrogatory answer admissible and supported finding that the truck was altered.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding or denying attorney fees.	Althenn challenges the scope and amount of attorney fees awarded to the Town.	Town argues the award was appropriate and no special circumstances justify additional fees.	Court did not abuse discretion; no additional fees awarded.

Peters v. O’Leary, 2011 ME 106 (Me. 2011) (statutory ambiguity resolved by plain meaning when reasonably susceptible)
Town of Mount Desert v. Smith, 2000 ME 88 (Me. 2000) (statute not unconstitutionally vague; interpretation guided by plain meaning)
Town of Pownal v. Emerson, 639 A.2d 619 (Me. 1994) (statutory interpretation of 30-A M.R.S. provisions)
Morin Bldg. Prods. Co., Inc. v. Atl. Design and Constr. Co., Inc., 615 A.2d 239 (Me. 1992) (credibility and review standards for factual findings)
City of Ellsworth v. Doody, 629 A.2d 1221 (Me. 1993) (abuse of discretion review for attorney fee awards)
Town of Falmouth v. Long, 578 A.2d 1168 (Me. 1990) (fees/considerations in zoning enforcement actions)
State v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304 (Me. 1996) (obvious error review standard for trial court decisions)
Lewis v. Knowlton, 1997 ME 12 (Me. 1997) (credibility and weighing witness testimony in fact-finding)
Mitchell v. Kieliszek, 2006 ME 70 (Me. 2006) (Rule 704 and lay opinion admissibility considerations)