Cross-Appeals

Maine law regarding cross-appeals has long been murky, and as a result that subject has often been the subject of commentary both at this blog (here and here, for instance) and elsewhere.  The Law Court brought additional clarity in this area of the law in its recent decision in Tominsky v. Town of Ogunquit.  In the Court’s own words, Tominsky “resolve[d] thorny questions” regarding standing requirements, Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80B, and Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 2C.

The facts of the case are fairly straightforward.  After the Town of Ogunquit issued building permits, a neighbor challenged the permits before the Town’s Board of Appeals.  The problem was that the neighbor’s challenge was not timely.  Nevertheless, the Board granted a “good cause” exception to the 30-day time limit and considered the merits – only to ultimately deny the appeal.  The neighbor appealed under Rule 80B, and the developer felt compelled to bring

Yesterday the Law Court, in an opinion written by Justice Connors, Concord General Mutual Ins. Co. v. Estate of Collette J. Boure, touched on two important appellate issues – one of which has been addressed often on this blog.  The issues involve timeliness of an appeal and the need for cross-appeals.

The case involved claims for insurance coverage in a motor vehicle accident.  One insurance company, Concord General Mutual Insurance Co., filed a declaratory judgment action against the decedent’s estate.  The Estate counterclaimed and brought a separate action against another insurer, 21st Century Centennial Insurance Co. After consolidating the cases, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in the insurers’ favor.  Judgment entered in favor of Concord on March 4, 2020, and in favor of 21st Century on February 24, 2021.  The Estate then appealed on March 10, 2021, identifying both judgments, and Concord filed a cross-appeal to argue for affirmance based on alternative grounds.

First,

Much has been said on this blog about when one should cross-appeal, given the Law Court’s jurisprudence on the topic.  I most recently addressed the issue here.  As I noted then, there is some tension between the text of the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that “[i]f the appellee seeks any change in the judgment that is on appeal, the appellee must file a cross-appeal to preserve that issue,” M.R. App. P. 2C(a)(1), and the Court’s most recent rulings (in Jones v. Secretary of State and Reed v. Secretary of State) regarding the necessity of cross-appealing to preserve an alternative argument for affirmance.  Because of the importance of this issue, my colleague Nolan Reichl and I recently published an article in the Maine Bar Journal (at page 10) addressing the topic.

As we wrote there,

Recent decisions by the Law Court have raised questions concerning

The Law Court recently addressed an issue of great importance to appellate practitioners: does a party need to cross-appeal a favorable judgment in order to preserve an argument providing alternate grounds for affirmance, when the lower court rejected that argument? The answer, per the Law Court’s decision, is “yes.” As the Law Court’s decision makes clear, and as my predecessor on this blog has noted, a cross-appeal is the only way to ensure that you will be able to raise the argument on appeal.

The decision, Reed v. Secretary of State, which is also very interesting substantively, involved a challenge to the Secretary of State’s determination that proponents of a citizen initiative had gathered enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. The petitioner’s challenge required the Superior Court to interpret statutes, 21-A M.R.S. § 903-E and 4 M.R.S. § 954-A, regulating the activities of notaries. Intervenors in the action argued in the Superior Court that