Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Issue: To what extent may the Equal Protection Clause be used to delay a gifting plan’s effective date in Maine?
| Area of Law: | Constitutional Law, Estate Planning & Probate |
| Keywords: | Equal protection clause; Gifting plan; Incapacity, Maine Human Rights Act, Probate |
| Jurisdiction: | Maine |
| Cited Cases: | 669 N.Y.S.2d 470; 386 F.3d 344; 895 A.2d 944; 316 P.3d 865 |
| Cited Statutes: | U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Article [I], section 6–A of the Maine Constitution; Me. Const. art. I, § 6–A; Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 4551 et seq.; Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 4552; 18-A M.R.S.A. § 5-401 |
| Date: | 03/01/2015 |
The Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, prohibits “any state from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, and requires, generally, that persons similarly situated be treated alike. Article [I], section 6–A of the Maine Constitution includes similar requirements.” Anderson v. Town of Durham, 895 A.2d 944, 953 (Me. 2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Me. Const. art. I, § 6–A (“No person shall be . . . denied the equal protection of the laws . . . .”). A court action is considered an action by the state. See, e.g., Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 14 (1948).
An equal-protection challenge requires a two-step analysis. Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 989 A.2d 1128, 1136 (Me. 2010). The first step is to “show that similarly situated persons are not treated equally under the law.” Id. If that step is met, the court next determines the appropriate level of scrutiny. Id.
“[A]n incapacitated person should be permitted to have the same options available to him or her with respect to transfers of his or her property that are available to competent individuals.” In re Klapper, N.Y. L.J., Aug. 9, 1994, at 26 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 9, 1994). Likewise, the court in In re Daniels stated that “an incapacitated person should be permitted to have the same options available to him or her with respect to transfers of his or her property that are available to competent individuals.” […]