Opinion ID: 2286059
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeal of the BEP Decision

Text: [¶ 26] Webster and Platz contend that their appeal to the BEP was successful because it resulted in the imposition of new conditions. According to them, the court's decision to deny Morse Brothers' motion to dismiss their appeal as frivolous contradicts the court's subsequent decision to deny the special motion to dismiss the present action. They contend that the court, in a footnote in its judgment, recognized that the appeal raised legitimate concerns when it stated that, because the DEP has required monitoring of the facility once it begins to operate, the applicant will proceed with the project at its peril. In addition, Webster and Platz contend that some delays related to the DEP permit came about because Morse Brothers filed its own appeal of the BEP's decision. [¶ 27] Although the court concluded in favor of Morse Brothers on the appeal, it also concluded in favor of Webster and Platz on the cross appeal. That the court reached its decision without difficulty cannot alone establish that the appeal lacked any factual or legal support. See Donovan, 740 N.E.2d at 643 (The fact that the incidents were resolved in the plaintiffs' favor ... does not mean that there was no colorable basis for [the defendants'] petitions). Moreover, the court denied Morse Brothers' motion to dismiss the BEP appeal as frivolous, and remarked on the legitimate concerns raised by the appeal. The court contradicts its earlier ruling that the appeal was not frivolous by concluding that Webster and Platz's exercise of its right of petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law.... 14 M.R.S.A. § 556. The evidence presented is inadequate to establish that the Morse group met its burden of proof pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 556.