Opinion ID: 1964869
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compliance With Order to Refill and Regrade Gravel Pit

Text: [¶ 9] McSorley next challenges the Superior Court's finding that he failed to comply with the court's previous order to refill and regrade his gravel pit. We will set aside a finding of fact only if there is no competent evidence in the record to support it. State v. Bartlett, 661 A.2d 1107, 1108 (Me.1995). The fact-finder is permitted to adopt any version of the evidence and to draw any reasonable inferences that flow from the testimony. Id. In this case, ample evidence was presented by the Town from which the court could find a continued failure to comply, including the testimony of Richard Perry, the Town's surveyor. Thus, the court did not err in finding continued noncompliance with its previous order. [¶ 10] McSorley also contends that the Superior Court erred in determining that he has the future ability to comply with the court's order despite of his failing health and financial circumstances. The court must consider the contemnor's power to perform the act required or refrain from doing the prohibited act. M.R. Civ. P. 66(c)(3)(B), 66(d)(2)(D)(ii). Because the court had previously determined that McSorley was in contempt and able to comply, it was McSorley's burden on the motion for relief from judgment to demonstrate that he was no longer able to comply. See KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Sargent, 2000 ME 153, ¶ 13, 758 A.2d 528, 533. He failed to present sufficient facts on which the court could find that he was unable to comply. [5] Therefore, the court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion in denying McSorley's motion for relief from the contempt judgments for inability to comply. See id. McSorley's remaining contentions on appeal do not require discussion. The entry is: Judgments affirmed.