Copp v. Longley

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

r'' l STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss ,, SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-18-053 J ELVIN COPP, et al. , Petitioners ORDER V. WILLIAM LONGLEY, et al., Respondents Before the court are petitioners' motion for trial of facts and motion to strike or dismiss respondent Town of Cumberland's counterclaim. For the following reasons, the motions are denied. Trial of Facts Petitioners' motion for trial of facts does not comply with Rule 80B(d) and (e). M.R. Civ. P. 80B(d)-(e) . In addition, petitioners do not explain why evidence they now seek to add could not have been made part of the record below. See Baker's Table. Inc. v. City of Portl and, 2000 ME 7, , 9, 743 A.2d 237; New Eng-Jand W hitewater Ctr .. Inc. v. Dep' t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife , 550 A.2d 56, 60 (Me. 1988). Petitioners allege bias by the Code Enforcement Officer and Town Manager. The court may only review the decision made by Town of Cumberland Board of Adjustment and Appeals. See Bryant v . Town of Wiscasset , 2017 ME 234,, 11, 176 A.3d 176. Petitioners' motion for trial of facts is denied. Counterclaim Petitioners object to respondents' counterclaim because no answer was filed. M.R. Civ. P. 7(a). No answer is required in a Rule 80B action. M.R. Civ. P. 80B(a). Respondents filed their ( entry of appearance as required in a Rule 80B action. Id. A land use enforcement counterclaim such as respondents' counterclaim is permitted in a Rule 80B action. See Baker v. Town of Woolw ich 517 A.2d 64, 66 (Me. 1987). The entry is Petitioners' Motion for Trial of Facts is DENIED. Petitioners' Motion to Strike or Dismiss C nterclaim is DENIE ' Date: April 5, 2019 ancy Mills Justice, Superior Court 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.