Mark S. Hider v. Jane E. Hider
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MAINE SUPREME J8UDICIAL COURT Decision: 2008 ME 193 Docket: Cum-08-288 Submitted On Briefs: December 12, 2008 Decided: December 23, 2008 Panel: Reporter of Decisions SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, LEVY, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ. MARK S. HIDER v. JANE E. HIDER PER CURIAM [¶1] Mark S. Hider appeals from a protection from abuse order entered against him on a complaint filed by his wife, Jane E. Hider, and from the denial of a petition for protection from abuse he filed against Jane, both entered in District Court (Portland, Eggert, J.). Contrary to Mark s contentions, competent evidence exists in the record to support the court s order entered against him. See Smith v. Hawthorne, 2002 ME 149, ¶¶ 15-16, 804 A.2d 1133, 1138-39. In addition, we discern no error in the court s denial of Mark s petition for protection against Jane. See Preston v. Tracy, 2008 ME 34, ¶¶ 10-11, 942 A.2d 718, 720; 19-A M.R.S. § 4006(1) (2007). Finally, we assess sanctions against Mark for his failure to file a complete and appropriate appendix. Sanctions are imposed in the amount of Jane s expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of her having to file a supplemental appendix. See M.R. App. P. 8(c)(2), (g), (j). The entry is: Judgments affirmed. Sanctions imposed against Mark Hider, pursuant to M.R. App. P. 8(j), in the amount of Jane Hider s expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of her having to file a supplemental appendix. 2 Mark S. Hider, pro se: Mark S. Hider 70 Cobb Avenue Portland, Maine 04102 Attorney for Jane E. Hider: M. Thomasine Burke, Esq. Brown & Burke 85 Exchange Street PO Box 7530 Portland, Maine 04112
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.
