Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bradbury v. City of Eastport

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

January 26, 2016

PHYLLIS BRADBURY et al.
v.
CITY OF EASTPORT et al

         Argued November 4, 2015.

          On the briefs: Kristin M. Collins, Esq., Kelly & Collins, LLC, Belfast, for appellants Phyllis Bradbury and David Gholson.

         Paul M. Koziell, Esq., Julia G. Pitney, Esq., and Michael T. Devine, Esq., Drummond & Drummond, LLP, Portland, for appellees First Perry Realty, LLC, and CPM Constructors.

         Dennis L. Mahar, Esq., Fletcher, Mahar & Clark, Calais, for appellees City of Eastport et al.

         At oral argument: Kristin M. Collins, Esq., for appellants Phyllis Bradbury and David Gholson.

         Paul M. Koziell, Esq., for appellees First Perry Realty, LLC, and CPM Constructors.

         Dennis L. Mahar, Esq., for appellees City of Eastport et al.

         Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

          OPINION

Page 189

          PER CURIAM

          [¶1] In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether the City of Eastport's sale of seventeen acres of publicly owned oceanfront property was " advertised" within the meaning of the Eastport City Charter then in effect. See Eastport, Me., City Charter art. III, § 3.04(12) (attested by City Clerk Oct. 17, 2011). Phyllis Bradbury and David Gholson appeal from a final judgment entered on motions for summary judgment in the Superior Court (Washington County, R. Murray, J. ) declining to provide declaratory or equitable relief that would prevent the sale of City property to First Perry Realty, LLC, and CPM Constructors.

          [¶2] Assuming that the complaint can be construed to seek rescission of the agreements entered into by the City Manager, and therefore that it continues to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we conclude that the record presented on summary judgment demonstrates that the actions taken by the City Council sufficiently " advertised" the sale within the meaning of the Eastport City Charter then in effect. See Eastport, Me., City Charter art. III, § 3.04(12); see also McGettigan v. Town of Freeport, 2012 ME 28, ¶ 13, 39 A.3d 48. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

         I. SALE PROCESS

          [¶3] As it existed at the time of the sale at issue here, the City Charter authorized the City Manager to " conduct all sales of property belonging to the City which is unfit or unnecessary for the City's use but only after such ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.