Msad 6 Bd. of Dirs. v. Town of Frye Island

229 A.3d 514

MSAD 6 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

v.TOWN OF FRYE ISLAND et al.

Docket: Cum-19-194

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: December 4, 2019

Decided: April 14, 2020

Eric J. Wycoff, Esq, Catherine R. Connors, Esq., and Sara A. Murphy, Esq. (orally), Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, for Appellants Town of Frye Island, Jim Hodge, and Ed Rogers

Agnieszka A. Dixon, Esq. (orally), Melissa A. Hewey, Esq., and Richard A. Spencer, Esq., Drummond Woodsum, Portland, for Appellee Board of Directors of Maine School Administrative District 6

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ.^*

HUMPHREY, J.

[¶1] The Town of Frye Island appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Warren , J. ) determining that Frye Island may not withdraw from Maine School Administrative District 6 (MSAD 6) in the absence of legislation specifically authorizing Frye Island to invoke the statutory withdrawal process laid out in 20-A M.R.S. § 1466 (2018). We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] For nearly twenty years, Frye Island has endeavored to withdraw from MSAD 6. This is the latest chapter in that long saga.

[¶3] The relevant facts are not in dispute and are drawn from Frye Island's uncontroverted statement of material facts and the trial court record. See Lee v. Town of Denmark , 2019 ME 54, ¶ 2, 206 A.3d 907. In addition, many of the salient facts underlying this dispute and the intersection of those facts with the enactment of relevant legislation are chronicled in Town of Frye Island v. State , 2008 ME 27, ¶¶ 2-6, 940 A.2d 1065 ( Frye Island I ).

[¶4] Frye Island is a seasonal summer community that shuts down from November through April each year. Id. ¶ 2. Although Frye Island is a member of MSAD 6, no school-aged children live on Frye Island during the school year and no residents of Frye Island have ever attended schools in the district. Id.

[¶5] Until 1997, Frye Island was part of the Town of Standish. That year, Frye Island sought secession from Standish, and the residents of Frye Island reached an agreement with Standish whereby Standish would remain neutral with respect to legislation allowing Frye Island to secede, provided that, among other things, Frye Island would remain part of MSAD 6 and continue to contribute to its support. Frye Island and Standish memorialized their agreement in a Memorandum of Understanding, dated April 11, 1997, which provided that Standish's neutrality was "contingent upon three conditions," one of which was that "Frye Island ... remain part of [the] Standish education entity, to include responsibilities for MSAD #6 on a pro-rated basis."

[¶6] That same year, the Legislature enacted the bill of secession, "An Act to Allow the Separation of Frye Island from the Town of Standish," as private and special legislation. See P. & S. L. 1997, ch. 41. The secession law provided that, in the event that Frye Island's voters approved secession, Frye Island "remains in [MSAD 6] or its successor and pays its proportional share of costs, unless or until such time as it withdraws from the school administrative district in accordance with applicable state law." Id. § A-8. A majority of Frye Island's voters favored secession, and Frye Island effectively seceded from Standish on July 1, 1998. Id. § A-3.

[¶7] In the months following secession, Frye Island adopted a charter, effective January 1, 1999, creating and defining its municipal government. See Charter of the Town of Frye Island (1999). The charter tracked the secession law's language, stating that Frye Island would remain in MSAD 6 and pay its share of costs "unless or until such time as it withdraws from [MSAD 6] in accordance with applicable state law." Id. art. IV, § 1.

[¶8] The following year, the residents of Frye Island voted unanimously to withdraw from MSAD 6. The Legislature responded by enacting, as emergency legislation, "An Act to Clarify the Act of Separation of Frye Island from the Town of Standish," P. & S. L. 2001, ch. 8, referred to as L.D. 500. Significant to this appeal, L.D. 500 (1) reiterated the agreement, reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding, that Frye Island would remain in MSAD 6 and pay its proportional share of costs, (2) amended the secession law by deleting the words "unless or until such time as it withdraws from [MSAD 6] in accordance with applicable state law," id. § 1, and (3) added the following provision:

Authorization required. Notwithstanding any withdrawal proceedings initiated or completed pursuant to the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 20-A, section 1405 prior to the effective date of this section, or any subsequent action taken by the Town of Frye Island, the Town of Frye Island is a part of and may not withdraw from School Administrative District 6 or its successor unless such withdrawal is first authorized by further amendment to this chapter .

Id. § 2 (emphasis added).

[¶9] In 2009, the Legislature created a new statutory process for municipalities to withdraw from school districts.¹ See P.L. 2009, ch. 580, § 9, codified at 20-A M.R.S. § 1466 (2018). Years later, in 2017, Frye Island residents voted in favor of filing a petition for Frye Island's withdrawal from MSAD 6 pursuant to section 1466. Then, in February 2018, Frye Island amended its charter, which now reads, in relevant part,

Preamble to Article IV. This article addresses the circumstances of Frye Island's students. It is impractical to send those students to the school district of which Frye Island is currently a member, School Administrative District 6 (SAD 06), based on SAD 06's distance and location compared to more geographically feasible school districts. Frye Island shall consider its best options with respect to its prospective students and its taxpayers, while acknowledging its commitment to public education in Maine. Therefore, Article IV clarifies, to the extent there is any debate, that this Charter repeals P. & S.L. 2001, ch. 8 (L.D. 500) under the authority granted to Frye Island by the Maine Constitution and the general laws of Maine .

Section 1. General. Frye Island remains a member of SAD 06 or its successor and pays it proportional share of costs, unless and until it withdraws from the school administrative district in accordance with the withdrawal procedures codified in Maine Revised Statutes, Title 20-A, section 1466, or other general laws of Maine. In the event that the Town of Frye Island is required to operate its own school system, the Voters shall provide, by Charter amendment or revision and/or ordinance, for the administration of such a system.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶10] On January 5, 2018, MSAD 6 filed a complaint against Frye Island, seeking a declaratory judgment that Frye Island's effort to withdraw from MSAD 6 was unlawful. In response, Frye Island acknowledged that it sought to withdraw from MSAD 6, but denied that its effort to withdraw was unlawful and counterclaimed seeking declaratory relief.² MSAD 6 answered Frye Island's counterclaim and moved to dismiss Count 3, which alleged that the secession law was unconstitutional. In the midst of all this, two individual residents of Frye Island—Jim Hodge and Ed Rogers³ —filed a joint motion seeking to "intervene or be joined ... as residents and taxpayers of Frye Island to enforce and protect the same constitutional rights asserted by Frye Island under the Maine and United States Constitutions." See M.R. Civ. P. 24(a), (b).

[¶11] On June 26, 2018, the court granted MSAD 6's motion to dismiss Count 3 of Frye Island's counterclaim except as to Frye Island's claim that the secession law violated the special legislation clause of the Maine Constitution. See Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 13. The court also granted the individual residents' motion for permissive intervention on the town's remaining claims.⁴ See M.R. Civ. P. 24(b).

[¶12] Initially, Frye Island moved for summary judgment on Count 1 of its counterclaim and on both counts of MSAD 6's complaint. Hodge and Rogers filed an independent complaint, alleging the same constitutional violations that had previously been alleged by Frye Island in Count 3 of its counterclaim prior to the court's dismissal, and MSAD 6 moved to dismiss the intervenors' complaint.

[¶13] On October 5, 2018, MSAD 6 filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on both counts of its complaint and on Count 1 of the Town's counterclaim, and a motion for summary judgment on the remaining two counts alleged in Frye Island's counterclaim. Rounding things out, Frye Island (along with Hodge and Rogers) filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment on Count 1 of the Town's complaint, an opposition to MSAD 6's cross-motion for summary judgment on Count 1 of its complaint, an opposition to MSAD 6's motion for summary judgment on Counts 2 and 3 of its complaint, and a cross-motion for summary judgment on Counts 2 and 3 of its complaint.

[¶14] On April 30, 2019, the court entered a final judgment (1) denying Frye Island's motion for summary judgment and its cross-motion for summary judgment; (2) granting MSAD 6's motion for summary judgment on both counts of its complaint and on all counts in Frye Island's counterclaim; and (3) granting MSAD 6's request for a declaratory judgment that Frye Island is not authorized to withdraw from MSAD 6 in the absence of legislation specifically authorizing it to invoke the withdrawal process. Frye Island timely filed a notice of appeal on May 17, 2019. See M.R. App. P. 2B(c).

[¶15] On May 20, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing Hodge and Rogers's independent complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hodge and Rogers timely filed a notice of appeal on June 7, 2019. See M.R. App. P. 2B(c). On June 27, 2019, the appeals were consolidated.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶16] The relevant facts are undisputed, and "we review the summary judgment de novo for errors of law in the court's interpretation of the relevant legal concepts." Ross v....