In City of Biddeford v. Holland, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court addressed the right to a jury trial in land use enforcement actions brought in District Court. The City of Biddeford initiated an action against Rory Holland for violating local codes, seeking civil penalties. Holland requested to remove the case to the Superior Court for a jury trial, which the District Court denied as incomplete and untimely.

The key points of the court’s decision are:

• Superior Court Jurisdiction: The Supreme Judicial Court clarified that the Superior Court has jurisdiction over land use enforcement actions under 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4452, despite the statute allowing municipal officials to represent the municipality in District Court. This statute does not grant exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court or divest the Superior Court of its general jurisdiction.
• Right to a Jury Trial: The court affirmed that Holland has a constitutional right to a jury trial because the City was seeking a civil monetary penalty.
• Removal Procedure: The court held that a defendant in a Rule 80K land use enforcement proceeding in District Court can invoke their right to a jury trial by removing the case to the Superior Court under M.R. Civ. P. 76C.
• Confusion and Remand: Acknowledging the existing confusion between Rule 80K (which allows oral answers and has no explicit removal provision) and Rule 76C (which requires written notice of removal filed within the time for serving an answer and payment of fees), the court found that Holland did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial.
• Decision: The court vacated the District Court’s decision denying Holland’s removal request and remanded the case, allowing Holland 20 days to comply with Rule 76C. The court specified that for Rule 80K proceedings, the notice of removal must be filed by the day of the first appearance.

Summary by Gemini