William Clark v. Hancock County Commissioners
2014 ME 33
| Me. | 2014Background
- Deputy Christopher Sargent, while driving home in a patrol car at 92 mph, struck a deer on Oct. 6, 2011; he admitted he was speeding and the car was extensively damaged. The county paid a $1,000 insurance deductible.
- Sheriff William Clark disciplined Sargent: one-day unpaid suspension and removal from eligibility for a new patrol car; Clark declined to require Sargent to reimburse the deductible.
- Hancock County Commissioners voted (Dec. 2011 and Jan. 2012) to collect the $1,000 deductible from Sargent; Clark opposed and the County later rescinded those votes (Mar. 6, 2012) after receiving a higher bid for the damaged vehicle.
- Clark, Sargent, and Teamsters Local #340 filed a Rule 80B appeal seeking review of the Commissioners’ votes and a declaratory judgment that the Commissioners exceeded their authority; they also sought attorney fees and costs.
- The Superior Court dismissed the Rule 80B appeal as moot, denied the declaratory-judgment claim as unripe, and refused to award attorney fees; Clark appealed (Sargent and the Union did not appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Rule 80B appeal | Clark: rescission did not moot the case because Commissioners lacked authority to revoke votes after suit, didn’t formally acknowledge lack of authority, and there remains a palpable risk of future ultra vires action | Commissioners: rescission removed any live controversy, rendering the appeal moot | Appeal moot; dismissal affirmed — no exceptions (collateral-consequences, public-interest, or capable-of-repetition) applied |
| Ripeness of declaratory-judgment claim | Clark: declaratory relief warranted to confirm Commissioners exceeded authority under 30-A M.R.S. §§ 401(2), 501(3) and CBA | Commissioners: no genuine controversy exists because challenged votes were rescinded | Denied as unripe — any alleged future harm speculative, not a concrete legal problem |
| Attorney fees as "necessary incidental expenses" under 30-A M.R.S. § 373(2) | Clark: court should award attorney fees incurred in Rule 80B appeal as necessary incidental expenses payable by Commissioners | Commissioners: statutory authority to pay such expenses lies with Commissioners; Clark failed to seek reimbursement administratively first | Denied — issue not preserved because Clark did not present fee claim to Commissioners before seeking judicial review |
| Review of Sargent’s due process and WMPA claims | Clark (arg.): court should address Sargent’s constitutional and statutory claims raised in summary-judgment motion | Commissioners: Sargent failed to appeal, so his claims aren’t properly before this Court | Court lacks jurisdiction to review Sargent’s claims because he did not file a notice of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe I v. Williams, 61 A.3d 718 (Me. 2013) (mootness standard and exceptions)
- Int’l Paper Co. v. United Paperworkers Int’l Union, 551 A.2d 1356 (Me. 1988) (mootness and lack of practical effect)
- Flaherty v. Muther, 17 A.3d 640 (Me. 2011) (avoiding advisory opinions)
- Sparks v. Sparks, 65 A.3d 1223 (Me. 2013) (public-interest exception criteria for mootness)
- Ten Voters of Biddeford v. City of Biddeford, 822 A.2d 1196 (Me. 2003) (capable-of-repetition exception analysis)
- Marquis v. Town of Kennebunk, 36 A.3d 861 (Me. 2011) (ripeness—genuine controversy requirement)
- Seider v. Bd. of Exam’rs of Psychologists, 762 A.2d 551 (Me. 2000) (preservation of administrative issues for appeal)
- New England Whitewater Ctr. v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988) (administrative exhaustion and fairness to agencies)
- In re Melissa T., 791 A.2d 98 (Me. 2002) (notice-of-appeal requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional)