The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
HANCOCK, ss. CIVIL ACTION
_HANSC-AP-02-10,
TOWN OF GOULDSBORO, _—s+*) .
Appellant ) DONALD L GARBRECHT
v. ) ORDER LAW LIBRARY
JANE DAVIS DOGGETT, NOV 19 ap
Appellee )
Pending before the Court is the Town of Gouldsboro’s (Appellant) MLR. Civ. P.
Rule 80(B) Appeal from the Town of Gouldsboro Zoning Board of Appeals’ (Board)
decision granting a variance to Jane Davis Doggett (Appellee). Wayne R. Foote, Esq.,
for the Town of Gouldsboro and Peter R. Roy, Esq., for Jane Davis Doggett.
The record reveals that on May 14, 2002, the Court, acting on Docket Number
AP-01-12, vacated the Board’s decision denying the Appellee’s variance and remanded
the matter to the Board for a hearing upon the reconsideration issue upon proper notice to
all parties within 30 days of receipt of notice of the decision. The record further indicates
that the Board did not hold a hearing upon the reconsideration and instead tabled the
issue. In general, if a party deviates from a court order, they are subject to reversal in a
subsequent proceeding. Gagne v. Town of Dresden, 2002 WL 273648, *4 (Me. Super.
Ct. 2002) (citing Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 886 (1989). The Court has the power
to make sure parties follow prior mandates. Id. See generally Department of Human
Services v. Monty, 2000 ME 96, {7, 750 A.2d 1276, 1278. MLR. Civ. P. 80(B)(c)
provides the court may “affirm, reverse, or modify the decision under review or may
remand the case to the governmental agency for further proceedings.” Therefore, the
Board’s decision to table the issue is vacated and this matter is remanded to the Board for
a hearing in accordance with the prior Court order. This Court will retain jurisdiction
pending the Board’s action.
Dated: }{-5-
ated: ISO FILED &
ENTERED
NOV 12 2002
SUPERIOR COURT
HANCOCK COUNTY