# Peter Beckford v. Town of Clifton

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · December 31, 2014 · 107 A.3d 1124

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805493

## Case

- **Full name:** Peter BECKFORD Et Al. v. TOWN OF CLIFTON Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** December 31, 2014
- **Citations:** 107 A.3d 1124; 2014 ME 156; 2014 Me. LEXIS 170; 2014 WL 7448471
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Silver
- **Judges:** Saufley, Alexander, Silver, Mead, Gorman, Jabar, Hjelm
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805493

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a statute is to be construed de novo, with an examination beyond its plain meaning “only if it is ambiguous” (quotation marks omitted)
- noting the consequences on appeal of ambiguities in a municipality’s decision

## Opinion text

SILVER, J.,
with whom JABAR, J., joins, dissenting.
[¶ 30] I respectfully dissent. The Beckfords’ appeal was timely and the Court should reach the merits. As the Court recognizes, there are two relevant votes — one on January 25 and one on January 30. Although the ZBA voted to deny the Beckfords’ appeal on January 25, the minutes of that meeting explain that the ZBA also “decided that [it] would meet January 30, 2012 @ 7:00 pm for the Final Decision” on the issue. (Emphasis added.) “The ‘date of the vote on the original decision’ necessarily means the vote finally approving or disapproving an appeal or an application, not any of the many preliminary votes that may be taken in the course of consideration of an appeal or an application.” Car roll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135, ¶ 23 , 837 A.2d 148 (emphasis added). The finality of the vote is what matters here.
[¶ 31] The minutes make clear that the January 25 meeting was not the final vote. As the Superior Court reasoned, “there would have been no need to schedule the matter on January 30, 2012 for the ‘Final Decision’ if the final decision had already been made.” The final public vote did not occur until January 30, when the ZBA voted to “accept the presented copy, as written, of the Notice of Final Decision made by the Appeals Board on the appeal from Julie and Peter Beckford.” I would therefore find that the appeal was timely.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805493. Public record. Not legal advice.