Opinion ID: 2286059
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Auburn/Poland Site Plan Appeals

Text: [¶ 22] Webster and Platz contend that because the appeals of the Auburn and Poland site plan decisions had merit, the Morse group has failed to meet its burden of proof. They contend that there was substantial opposition to the site plans, and that Morse Brothers itself admitted to noise problems at the Windham plant. They contend that they had probable cause for initiating the appeal because they reasonably believed that the permits might be held invalid. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 674 cmt. e (1977). Further, they contend that, because the Auburn and Poland appeals were consolidated, and they prevailed on the Auburn appeal, the Morse group has failed to establish that it prevailed on the merits of this consolidated appeal. [¶ 23] The parties do not dispute that the appeal of the Auburn decision had merit, so we need only address the Poland appeal. The consolidation of the Poland and Auburn appeals does not make the Poland appeal any more or less meritorious than it would have been if decided alone. Consolidated appeals do not restrict the court to an all or nothing review of the decisions from which the parties appeal. See, e.g., State v. Bleyl, 435 A.2d 1349, 1368 (Me.1981) (affirming some convictions and vacating others in consolidated appeal brought by three co-defendants). [¶ 24] The Morse group submitted the affidavit of John Conway of the Poland Planning Board, who avers that Mr. Rosenblatt said that his clients intended to litigate the project to its death. Susan Oram, who represented Morse Brothers in the proceedings, avers that Webster and Platz's attorney said to her, See you next time, at the close of the hearing on the appeal, and that he stated to her with regard to another land use matter that if her other client did not meet his demands, he would `appeal and all that other good stuff just like I have been doing in the Platz case.' Even assuming that this evidence would be admissible and not excluded as hearsay, these statements are inadequate to establish that the Poland appeal was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law. 14 M.R.S.A. § 556. Moreover, others' recollections of comments made by Webster and Platz's attorney do not speak to Webster's or Platz's intentions, especially in light of Platz's affidavit stating that his intentions at all times have been to force Morse Brothers to comply with the applicable law. [¶ 25] Although the Morse group contends that the trial court was in the best position to decide the special motion because it heard all the underlying appeals, the court's legal conclusion must be supported by pleadings and evidence that demonstrate clearly that the appeal was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law.... Id.; see Jenness v. Nickerson, 637 A.2d 1152, 1154 (Me.1994) (a party seeking summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly that there is no genuine issue of fact) (quoting 2 FIELD, McKUSICK & WROTH, MAINE CIVIL PRACTICE, § 56.4 at 39 (2d ed.1970)). As a matter of law, the Morse group's evidence does not meet the burden articulated in 14 M.R.S.A. § 556.