State of Maine v. Ronald P. Champagne

2017 ME 235

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• Decided: December 19, 2017
• Status: Published

Opinion

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2017 ME 235 Docket: And-17-131 Argued: September 12, 2017 Decided: December 19, 2017

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

STATE OF MAINE

v.

RONALD P. CHAMPAGNE

PER CURIAM

[¶1] Following a final hearing on the Attorney General’s complaint

alleging that Ronald P. Champagne violated the Maine Civil Rights Act (MCRA),

the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, MG Kennedy, J.), entered a judgment

permanently enjoining Champagne from, inter alia, “threatening or using

physical force or violence against any person by reason of that person’s race,

color, religion, sex, ancestry, national origin, physical or mental disability or

sexual orientation.” See 5 M.R.S. §§ 4681(1), 4684-A (2016). Asserting that the

injunction was overbroad, Champagne moved the court to amend the judgment

and for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. See M.R. Civ. P. 52(b), 59.

The court denied the motions, and Champagne appealed. 2

[¶2] Such a comprehensive injunctive remedy must rest upon articulated

factual findings that are supported by the evidence. Because the court did not

make the required factual findings providing the basis for its injunction, we do

not have a sufficient record for appellate review. Accordingly, we must remand

the matter for the court to make findings that provide the reasons for the

issuance of the judgment, as required by Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d),

which provides, in part, that

[e]very restraining order and every order granting a preliminary or permanent injunction shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; [and] shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶3] In Vance v. Speakman, we vacated an injunction that was issued in

contravention of the Rule 65(d) requirement that a court “set forth the reasons”

for doing so, explaining that “[t]he purpose of the 65(d) requirement is to

enable an[] appellate court to know exactly what findings of fact and rulings of

law are being used to justify the injunction.” 409 A.2d 1307, 1311 n.4

(Me. 1979). Here, the court did not articulate the “findings of fact and rulings

of law . . . being used to justify the injunction” beyond its limited finding 3

regarding Champagne’s motivations based on sexual orientation. See Vance,

409 A.2d at 1311 n.4; M.R. Civ. P. 65(d).

[¶4] Absent adequate findings and an explanation of the court’s rationale

for the granting of and the broad scope of the injunction, we are unable to

determine whether the court abused its discretion when it issued the very

broad and permanent injunction. See Stanton v. Strong, 2012 ME 48, ¶ 8,

40 A.3d 1013 (“When a court grants a permanent injunction, our review is

limited to whether the injunction constitutes an abuse of discretion.”

(alteration and quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we remand the matter

for the court to make findings supporting an injunction of a scope that it

determines is warranted by the evidence, and to explain its rationale in doing

so.1

The entry is:

Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1 In reaching this result, we do not suggest that the scope of the court’s original injunction is or is

not supportable; we simply hold that at this juncture there are insufficient findings to permit appellate review. 4

Donald S. Hornblower, Esq. (orally), Lewiston, for appellant Ronald P. Champagne

Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Leanne Robbin, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine

Androscoggin County Superior Court docket number CV-2012-60 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY