Jimino v. Town of Yarmouth
This text of Jimino v. Town of Yarmouth (Jimino v. Town of Yarmouth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE Syagcnd . | £%'SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss OLER red» oe 88 CIVIL ACTION , * “" DOGKET NO. CV-00-085 lie 1212 37 py ye" -CuM- 3 ia/) ALPHONSO JIMINO and : PHYLLIS JIMINO, Plaintiffs
vs. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION : FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TOWN OF YARMOUTH,
Defendant
In their complaint, the plaintiffs seek damages from the defendant based on a
theory of promissory estoppel. See Def.’s SUMF, J 16; Cottle Enterprises, Inc. v.
Town of Farmington, 1997 ME 78, J 17 n.6, 693 A.2d 330, 335 n.6. The plaintiffs’
claims are not governed by the Maine Tort Claims Act. See Heber v. Lucerne-in-
Maine Village Corp., 2000 ME 137, { 15, 755 A.2d 1064, 1068; Mueller_v. Penobscot
Valley Hosp., 538 A.2d 294, 297-98 (Me. 1988); see also Det.'s Mem. at 7 n.3. The issuance of a building permit by a code enforcement officer does not
constitute a promise by the Town. See Sirois v. Town of Frenchville, 441 A.2d 291,
295 (Me. 1982); see also Tarbuck v. Jaeckel, 2000 ME 105, ¥ 18, 752 A.2d 176, 181
(absence of promise forecloses argument of promissory estoppel). Finally, based on the factual determination of the Town’s Planning Board, the plaintiffs’ construction was located within 75 feet of the upland edge of a wetland.
See Town of North Berwick v. Jones, 534 A.2d 667, 669-70 (Me. 1987); Def.’s SUMF, J
9, Attachment E; but cf. Pls.’ SDMF, 77 11-15, 17. The code enforcement officer did
not have the authority to issue a building permit for construction within 75 feet of the upland edge of a wetland. See Cottle, 693 A.2d at 331; Shackford & Gooch, Inc. v.
Town of Kennebunk, 486 A.2d 102, 106 (Me. 1984); Def.’s SUMF, 7 8, 10-11.
The entry is
The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of the
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs on the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Dated: March 10, 2001 [
ancy Mills Justice, Superior (/ourt
Date Filed* 02-04-00
CUMBERLAND
Docket No, __CV_00-085
Action CONTRACT
County
ALPHONSO JIMINO and PHYLLIS JIMINO
VS.
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
Plaintiff's Attorney
JOHN P. BAUSE ESQ 784-3576 PO BOX 961, LEWISTON ME 044243
Date of Entry
Defendant’s Attorney
DAVID HERZER, JR., ESQ. 775-0808 P. 0. BOX 4600 PORTLAND, MAINE 04112-4600
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jimino v. Town of Yarmouth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimino-v-town-of-yarmouth-mesuperct-2001.