savings clause in Maine

2012See Wentworth, 2003 ME 97 , ¶ 8 n. 5, 829 A.2d 520 (holding in a case nearly factually identical to the present case that section 772(1) did not apply because the defendant, owner of the servient estate, availed herself of the savings clause of 33 M.R.S. § 772(2) by filing a timely counterclaim *1010 arguing that the 1917 deed that originally created the right of way over her property did not contain technical words of inheritance); see also 33 M.R.S. § 772(3) (stating that a person may not commence a civil action for the recovery of property as described in § 772(2) after December 31, 2002).

2012See Wentworth, 2003 ME 97 , ¶ 8 n. 5, 829 A.2d 520 (holding in a case nearly factually identical to the present case that section 772(1) did not apply because the defendant, owner of the servient estate, availed herself of the savings clause of 33 M.R.S. § 772(2) by filing a timely counterclaim *1010 arguing that the 1917 deed that originally created the right of way over her property did not contain technical words of inheritance); see also 33 M.R.S. § 772(3) (stating that a person may not commence a civil action for the recovery of property as described in § 772(2) after December 31, 2002).

2011For example, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit severed a provision for expanded judicial review of an arbitration award because no contract reformation was required, it “[did] not permeate any other portion of the arbitration clause, and the review provisions [were] not interdependent with any other.” Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987 , 1001-02 (9th Cir.2003); see also Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25, 62-63 (1st Cir.2006) (concluding that a clause barring class arbitration that comprised a full paragraph in the agreement was a major provision, b

2011In Kyocera, the court specifically rejected a party’s argument against severance of a clause that provided for judicial review of an arbitration award based on the party’s assertion that it “would never have agreed to arbitrate at all if expansive review were precluded.” See 341 F.3d at 1000. [¶ 34] In its order confirming the arbitration award, the court found, with respect to the parties’ intent, that “[they] agreed to this severability clause, which is no way an unusual contractual term,” and it “perceive[d] no reason, based on the record before it, to invalidate the entire arbitration agre

2011For example, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit severed a provision for expanded judicial review of an arbitration award because no contract reformation was required, it “[did] not permeate any other portion of the arbitration clause, and the review provisions [were] not interdependent with any other.” Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987 , 1001-02 (9th Cir.2003); see also Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25, 62-63 (1st Cir.2006) (concluding that a clause barring class arbitration that comprised a full paragraph in the agreement was a major provision, b

2004E.g., Samples-Ehrlich v. Simon, 876 P.2d 108, 111 (Colo.Ct.App.1994) (applying a statute of limitations that was in effect when a note was negotiated due to a savings clause in the statute).

1999See id. [¶ 17] Here, the language of the trust’s savings clause demonstrates awareness that the trust would eventually be incapable of validly passing to the next lineal descendant.

1999We have held that “[a]bsent the requisite clear and unequivocal language to the contrary, the general rule that actions and proceedings pending at the time of the passage, amendment or repeal of an act or ordinance are not affected thereby, applies.” Riley v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 639 A.2d 626, 628 (Me.1994); see also DeMello v. Department of Envtl.