Brian Danielson v. Yi Peng

2017 ME 80, 159 A.3d 1223, 2017 WL 1737853, 2017 Me. LEXIS 82

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• Decided: May 4, 2017
• Status: Published

Opinion

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2017 ME 80 Docket: Pen-16-333 Submitted On Briefs: April 27, 2017 Decided: May 4, 2017

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

BRIAN DANIELSON

v.

YI PENG

PER CURIAM

[¶1] Brian Danielson appeals from a judgment of the District Court

(Bangor, Jordan, J.) dismissing as moot Danielson’s March 2016 motion for

relief from a post-divorce contempt judgment that had been entered against

him in 2015. We affirm the court’s judgment.

[¶2] Danielson and Yi Peng were divorced through a judgment entered

in April 2013. The judgment established that the parties would share parental

rights and responsibilities of their then six-year-old daughter, and it set forth

a schedule of contact. The judgment required the parties to confer with each

other regarding medical decisions, with Danielson having final

decision-making authority regarding medical issues if the parties could not

agree. 2

[¶3] In February 2015, Peng moved for contempt on the ground that

Danielson was depriving her of contact with the child. The court (Dow, J.)

found Danielson in contempt in a judgment signed on March 20, 2015,

because Danielson had deprived Peng of contact and had attempted to have

the child take prescription medication without first consulting with Peng. The

court imposed a seven-day jail sentence on Danielson but stayed it in its

entirety. Danielson filed a motion for contempt against Peng a week later,

arguing that she had failed to administer the medication after Danielson had

first consulted with her and then decided it should be given. By order entered

on November 2, 2015, the court denied Danielson’s motion for contempt.

[¶4] Danielson appealed from both the judgment granting Peng’s

motion for contempt and the judgment denying his motion for contempt. We

affirmed the judgments. See Danielson v. Peng, Mem-16-111 (Oct. 11, 2016);

Danielson v. Peng, Mem-16-11 (Feb. 2, 2016).

[¶5] Now, for a second time, Danielson challenges the judgment finding

him in contempt, this time arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide

the contempt motion because it had granted a change of venue before holding

the contempt hearing. An argument that venue was improper does not

constitute a challenge to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, however, and 3

therefore may not be raised at any time. See Powers v. Planned Parenthood of

N. New Eng., 677 A.2d 534, 538 (Me. 1996); see also Strout, Payson, Pellicani,

Hokkanen, Strong & Levine v. Barker, 2001 ME 28, ¶ 7, 765 A.2d 994; Biette v.

Scott Dugas Trucking & Excavating, Inc., 676 A.2d 490, 495 (Me. 1996); State v.

True, 330 A.2d 787, 789 (Me. 1975); State v. Baldwin, 305 A.2d 555, 558 (Me.

1973). A challenge to a trial court’s venue may be raised only in a timely

appeal. See 14 M.R.S. § 1901 (2016); 19-A M.R.S. § 104 (2016); M.R.

App. P. 2(a)(1), (b)(3). Accordingly, the court did not err in determining that

Danielson’s motion for relief—filed only after we had already affirmed the

contempt judgment on appeal, Danielson v. Peng, Mem-16-11 (Feb. 2, 2016)—

raised no “real and substantial controversy.” Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v.

Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 2016 ME 57, ¶ 5, 136 A.3d 714 (quotation

marks omitted).

[¶6] We note that Danielson, through this third appeal relating to the

court’s 2015 contempt judgments, seeks relief from a decision issued two

years ago regarding medical treatment of the parties’ daughter, who is now

ten years old. Because we have fully reviewed both of those 2015 judgments

on appeal, the District Court should carefully consider a summary dismissal of 4

any other motions filed by Danielson seeking to collaterally attack those

judgments.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Brian Danielson, appellant pro se

Yi Peng did not file a brief

Bangor District Court docket number FM-2015-157 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY