to judicial efficiency and simplification of process.”). In addition, allowing concurrent jurisdiction in the Superior Court guarantees the parties’ right to a jury trial in those actions in which either party desires a jury trial. See Me. Const. art. I, § 20 (“In all civil suits, and in all controversies concerning property, the parties shall have a right to a trial by jury....”); Plimpton v. Gerrard, 668 A.2d 882, 887 (Me.1995) (noting that a plaintiff seeking damages cannot demand a jury trial in the Probate Court). Having the case adjudicated in the Superior Court likewise protects the rights of the surety, who, as a party to the suit, can assert affirmative defenses and counterclaims directly against the plaintiff. See, e.g., Woodbury v. Hammond, 54 Me. 332, 340-42 (1866) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 15] In sum, our recognition of the
holding that a defendants sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time he committed the offense holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious holding that under the probate statute in effect at the time a surety could not appeal a judgment entered in a probate proceeding on grounds that the plaintiff committed fraud but could do so in a common law court where he was amply protected holding district court of appeal in error for reversing summary judgment entered for defendant so that plaintiff could plead fraudulent concealment on remand for the first time holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal