190 A.3d 249
Me.2018Background
- Landherr and Center installed a large standby generator on their small lakefront lot in early 2015 without obtaining a permit; it sits on a concrete pad with underground electric and gas lines and is less than 100 feet from the lake.
- Mount Vernon Land Use Ordinance requires structures and accessory structures to meet a 100-foot shoreland setback and requires permits for placement of structures.
- The Town's Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) denied an after-the-fact permit and advised the landowners of appeal and variance procedures; the landowners appealed to the Mount Vernon Board of Appeals, arguing the generator was not a "structure."
- The Board of Appeals held a public hearing, unanimously concluded the generator met the Ordinance's definition of "structure," and the landowners did not appeal that decision to Superior Court.
- After the appeal period lapsed and the landowners did not remove the generator, the Town issued a notice of violation and, later, filed a land use violation complaint under 30-A M.R.S. § 4452 and M.R. Civ. P. 80K seeking removal, penalties, and attorney fees.
- The District Court held that the Board of Appeals' decision had preclusive effect (issue preclusion), found the landowners in violation, assessed a $500 civil penalty, and awarded attorney fees; the court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Landherr & Center's Argument | Town of Mount Vernon’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board of Appeals’ prior decision that the generator is a "structure" precludes relitigation in the Rule 80K land use violation proceeding | They argued Rule 80K requires a de novo hearing and that issue preclusion should not apply in a land use violation proceeding | The Board’s unappealed, final decision is binding under res judicata / issue preclusion; the Town argued the District Court could apply that prior determination | Held: Issue preclusion applies; the Board’s decision was a valid final judgment and barred relitigation of whether the generator is a "structure." |
| Whether summary judgment / preclusion procedure was improper in a Rule 80K proceeding | Argued summary judgment was inappropriate and that they were entitled to relitigate merits in the District Court | Town asserted res judicata justified preclusion and that summary judgment (or judicial notice) could be used to enforce the prior decision | Held: Rule 80K does not prohibit summary judgment; court properly resolved preclusion before dispositional issues; judicial notice could also have been used. |
| Whether equitable defenses (equitable estoppel, de minimis violation) excuse noncompliance | Landowners claimed equitable defenses and de minimis nature of violation warranted relief | Town disputed defenses and sought enforcement, penalties, and fees | Held: District Court found landowners failed to carry burden on equitable defenses; upheld penalty and fees (not further addressed on appeal). |
| Whether applying res judicata here is unfair or unduly burdensome on landowners | Landowners argued preclusion makes compliance more difficult/expensive and public policy favors fresh litigation | Town argued preclusion promotes finality and encourages landowners to seek relief before enforcement actions | Held: Court rejected policy argument; preclusion promotes resolution prior to filing enforcement actions and is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompson, 958 A.2d 887 (Me. 2008) (standard of review for questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Town of N. Berwick v. Jones, 534 A.2d 667 (Me. 1987) (res judicata applies to final administrative municipal decisions)
- Macomber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie, 834 A.2d 131 (Me. 2003) (elements of issue preclusion / collateral estoppel explained)
- Manguriu v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2015) (courts may take judicial notice of agency determinations)