Paul and Robert Dyer appealed a summary judgment in favor of the Maine Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding the DOT’s eminent domain taking of their five-acre property, which included the Sail Inn Restaurant. The Dyers argued that the DOT exceeded its powers by taking all five acres, asserting that only a portion was necessary for the new Waldo-Hancock Bridge project.

The facts of the case, as largely undisputed, indicate that the Waldo-Hancock Bridge, completed in 1931, needed replacement due to structural issues, particularly deteriorating cables discovered in 2002-2003. This led the DOT to expedite a “design-build” process for a new adjacent bridge. The DOT took the Dyers’ property under eminent domain, citing the necessity for construction, staging, public safety due to severe blasting, and traffic safety concerns at the restaurant’s location near a highway curve. The Dyers’ award for the property was increased from $225,000 to $470,000 in a separate appeal.

The Dyers challenged the legality of the taking, arguing that the DOT took the entire property because it did not want the restaurant operating there, and that four acres were never utilized for construction. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the DOT, holding that decisions on exigency for takings are political and will only be set aside if there’s no rational basis or if the agency abused its power. The court noted the Dyers’ failure to comply with M.R. Civ. P. 56(h) in responding to material facts, effectively admitting many of the DOT’s statements.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment. The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, emphasizing that an owner’s opinion alone is insufficient to prove bad faith or abuse of power in an eminent domain case. The court found that the Dyers failed to present evidence beyond personal opinion to contradict the DOT’s reasons for taking the entire five acres, such as the need for flexibility during construction, staging areas, and public and traffic safety concerns. The court concluded that the DOT had a rational basis for determining the necessity of taking all the property and that there was no evidence of bad faith or abuse of power. The court also upheld the Superior Court’s decision to prohibit questioning DOT employees about their mental processes, as the Dyers failed to show strong evidence of bad faith.

Summary by Gemini