Opinion ID: 1424906
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Land Use Citation and Complaint

Text: [¶ 22] Cormier contends that the trial court erred in imposing a penalty for violations of the Ordinance on days not specifically alleged in the Town's land use citation and complaint. We disagree. [¶ 23] A land use citation and complaint shall contain ... the time and place of the alleged violation or, if they are not known, the time and place at which it was first observed by the complainant .... M.R. Civ. P. 80K(c)(1) (emphasis added). The language of the Rule does not limit the complainant's recovery to the times and places alleged in the complaint. Instead, it contemplates occasions when the complainant will not know the exact time and place of all violations. Therefore, Cormier's contention that the court cannot impose a penalty for violations at times not specifically alleged in the complaint is without merit. [¶ 24] In addition, Cormier and the Temple had fair notice that the Town was accusing them of violating the Ordinance on occasions not specifically alleged in the original complaint. See Rubin, 478 A.2d at 669 n. 4. (The function of the complaint is to provide fair notice ....). The original complaint, after alleging three specific violations, proceeded to state that it is believed that the violation is an ongoing one .... (Emphasis added.). Following the complaint, the Town filed a contempt complaint and an amended contempt complaint which together alleged more than eleven additional violations. The original complaint and the subsequent contempt complaints sufficiently apprised Cormier and the Temple of the nature of the action against them. See Bolton, 584 A.2d at 617.