Town of Kittery v. James M. Dineen
157 A.3d 788
| Me. | 2017Background
- James M. Dineen owns two abutting Kittery properties: 40 Old Post Road (Mary’s Store, a dilapidated building) and 42–44 Old Post Road (the Bus Lot, used for Dineen Bus Lines). The Town sued beginning in 1985 over junked buses and nuisance conditions on the Bus Lot.
- The Town obtained multiple court orders and receivership actions over many years addressing vehicles and compliance; a motion to extend those orders to Mary’s Store was filed and litigated intermittently beginning in the late 1990s.
- On June 19, 2015, after a conference, the Superior Court entered a procedural order (agreed by the parties) requiring Dineen to remove a burnt bus (and a bread van) from the Mary’s Store parcel and to place nothing in its stead.
- Dineen filed an untimely motion to vacate; the Town moved for contempt. On March 31, 2016, the court found Dineen in contempt for failing to remove the burnt bus, ordered jail time unless he complied by a deadline, and awarded attorney fees.
- Separately, after a March 9, 2015 Town Council hearing (with testimony from fire, police, code officials and Dineen), the Council found Mary’s Store a “dangerous building” under 17 M.R.S. § 2851 and ordered demolition; the Superior Court affirmed; Dineen appealed both judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dineen) | Defendant's Argument (Town) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt — jurisdiction | Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to apply earlier orders to Mary’s Store because it was not in the original complaint | Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction; Dineen consented to the June 19 order extending requirements to Mary’s Store | Held: No jurisdictional problem; Dineen consented, so contempt finding proper |
| Contempt — laches/abandonment | Town abandoned motion to extend and waited unreasonably (laches) | Town acted intermittently and gave Dineen substantial time; delays were explained by case history | Held: Laches does not bar enforcement; Town did not sleep on its rights |
| Contempt — scope/overbreadth of order | Order exceeded scope and was overbroad/unenforceable (e.g., prohibition on replacing vehicles) | Order resulted from parties’ agreement; language was clear and within court’s equitable power | Held: Order was within scope, clear, and enforceable; contempt supported by evidence |
| Dangerous-building determination | Council lacked substantial evidence and should have considered less drastic alternatives than demolition | Fire, police, and code officials testified to structural collapse, hazards, and public risk; demolition authorized by statute | Held: Substantial evidence supports dangerous-building finding; demolition order not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- MacMahon v. Tinkham, 109 A.3d 1141 (Me. 2015) (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to support trial court judgment)
- Windham Land Tr. v. Jeffords, 967 A.2d 690 (Me. 2009) (Superior Court jurisdiction as court of general jurisdiction and equitable relief)
- Beckerman v. Pooler, 119 A.3d 74 (Me. 2015) (standard of proof and review for contempt findings)
- Carroll F. Look Constr. Co. v. Town of Beals, 802 A.2d 994 (Me. 2002) (mootness/ongoing stake considerations)
- Town of Falmouth v. Long, 578 A.2d 1168 (Me. 1990) (definition and application of laches)
- Beal v. Town of Stockton Springs, 2017 ME 6 (Me. 2017) (administrative factfinding/substantial-evidence review)
- Osprey Family Tr. v. Town of Owls Head, 141 A.3d 1114 (Me. 2016) (scope of review for administrative record)
- Town of Freeport v. Ocean Farms of Me., Inc., 633 A.2d 396 (Me. 1993) (standard for awarding attorney fees in municipal enforcement actions)
Judgments affirmed; remanded to Superior Court to quantify attorney fees on the contempt judgment.