Paul Ballerstein, et ux. v. Penelope McHatten, et al.

In this civil case, Maine courts deprived the defendants of their property, after concluding that the facts “foreclose” doing so. The trial court found that actually meeting the statutory requirements was a “factual impossibility”, but then it invoked that selfsame statute against them anyway. Gan a civil court arbitrarily override clearly written statutory requirements? The court purposefully ruled contrary to the facts on record, in violation of statutory requirements, in order to penalize one party in favor of the other. Does demonstrated judicial bias/prejudice prove insufficient Due Process, and thereby render its entire judgment invalid?