Opinion ID: 1535551
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nemon's standing to contest the certificate of approval

Text: We will entertain a question of standing at any time. See Smith v. All-state Insurance Co., 483 A.2d 344, 346 (Me.1984). Nonetheless, that question need not long detain us here. Nemon was a party to the proceedings before FAME, a necessary element of standing to obtain direct judicial review of agency action. Anderson v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services, 489 A.2d 1094, 1097 n. 6 (Me.1985). Nemon is a competitor of Summit Floors, and Nemon's complaint can, in view of Nemon's contentions at the public hearing on the bond issue, be read to allege: 1) that FAME had violated 10 M.R.S.A. § 1061-A by approving a project for a business that was over 25% retail in nature; and 2) that the approved project would have a substantially detrimental impact on Nemon's already existing business in violation of 10 M.R.S.A. § 1063(2)(B). Admittedly conclusory and nonspecific, those allegations are minimally sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the petition based on standing alone. Hammond Lumber Co. v. Finance Authority of Maine, 521 A.2d 283, 287 (Me.1987). As a business competitor of Summit Floors, Nemon has standing to challenge the certificate of approval issued by FAME for a bond issue that would provide a competitive advantage to Summit Floors. Id.