Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. John H. Bartlett
2014 ME 37
| Me. | 2014Background
- Bayview (assignee of original lender) filed a foreclosure complaint against John and Cheryl Bartlett in Nov. 2009 alleging default on a $136,500 note.
- The court ordered mediation; Bayview was allowed to appear telephonically but failed to attend three mediations (June 2010, April 9, 2012, and Feb. 11, 2013) and did not timely file required forms.
- After the Jan. 30, 2012 mediation Bayview tentatively approved a trial loan modification; Bartletts received formal terms that differed and were concerned about communication after servicer transfer.
- The court imposed intermediate sanctions (tolling interest/fees, payment of expenses/attorney fees, $1,000 fine) and warned Bayview that further breaches risked dismissal with prejudice.
- Bayview missed a fourth mediation (representative late/called after participants left); the court dismissed Bayview’s foreclosure complaint with prejudice for repeated nonattendance and pattern of disruptive behavior.
- Bayview appealed, arguing (inter alia) mediation was not required, dismissal was legally improper/overbroad, factual errors in Bartletts’ motions, improper weighing of prejudice, and lack of testimonial hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bayview) | Defendant's Argument (Bartletts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mediation was required | Mediation not required; court lacked authority to base dismissal on mediation nonattendance | Bayview acquiesced to mediation order and sought extensions for mediation | Issue not preserved on appeal; Bayview waived objection by consenting and participating in mediation process |
| Whether court understood effect of dismissal with prejudice | Court failed to analyze res judicata effect and severity of dismissal in foreclosure context | Court was aware of gravity and warned Bayview before imposing ultimate sanction | Court understood legal ramifications; no requirement to detail res judicata analysis explicitly |
| Whether Rule/statute barred Bartletts’ motions or tainted proceedings | Bartletts’ motions were improper under 14 M.R.S. § 6321‑A(9) and M.R. Civ. P. 93(d)(1); motions contained factual inaccuracies | Motions were effectively sanction motions (permitted); court may dismiss sua sponte; court did not rely on alleged inaccuracies | Court acted within authority; Rule 93(d)(1) does not bar sanction requests and statute/rule allow dismissal for mediation nonattendance |
| Whether dismissal was disproportionate / improper weighing of prejudice | Bayview’s prior participation and inadvertent absences made dismissal excessive; dismissal grants Bartletts an unwarranted windfall | Repeated failures deprived Bartletts of opportunities to resolve case; lesser sanctions failed; warning issued and ignored | Court reasonably weighed factors and did not abuse discretion in imposing dismissal with prejudice |
| Whether testimonial hearing / delegation error occurred | Court improperly relied on mediator reports and should have held a testimonial hearing | Court considered record, warning, and pattern; testimonial hearing not required and issue was not preserved | Argument not preserved; even if heard, court would reject excuse given prior failures; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Hoch v. Stifel, 16 A.3d 137 (Me. 2011) (sets factors and standard for imposing pretrial sanctions)
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Demers, 966 A.2d 400 (Me. 2009) (discusses sanctions for mediation/discovery noncompliance)
- Bradbury v. City of Eastport, 72 A.3d 512 (Me. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review framework)
- Douglas v. Martel, 835 A.2d 1099 (Me. 2003) (party not entitled to prior warning before dismissal for rule violations)
- Hatch v. Me. Tank Co., 666 A.2d 90 (Me. 1995) (affirming dismissal where order warned that dismissal would follow continued noncompliance)
- Johnson v. Samson Constr. Corp., 704 A.2d 866 (Me. 1997) (noted res judicata consequences of dismissal in foreclosure context)
- Baker’s Table, Inc. v. City of Portland, 743 A.2d 237 (Me. 2000) (factors for sanctioning and balancing purposes)
- Pelletier v. Pathiraja, 519 A.2d 187 (Me. 1986) (consideration of whether to sanction party or counsel)