CENTRIX BANK AND TRUST v. Kehl, 40 A.3d 942

Kehl and related entities faced judgment-threatening attachment on a principal loan package totaling over $1.59 million and two additional notes secured by a Government Street property.
An initial prejudgment attachment and trustee process order was issued after a contested hearing in February 2010, with Kehl and POC served in January 2010 and no appeal from that order.
Kehl and POC moved in December 2010 to modify the attachment, seeking removal of attachments on the Thaxter Lane LLC properties and arguing security by the Government Street property.
Centrix opposed the modification and introduced appraisal data showing the Government Street value was insufficient to cover the judgment as of 2011, while Kehl relied on a 2008 appraisal not attached to her filing.
In June 2011, the court consolidated Centrix’s actions against Kehl and reserved trial issues, ultimately denying the modification; Kehl appealed the denial as interlocutory.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the final judgment rule barred the appeal because the arguments could have been raised at the original attachment hearing and no collateral-order or other exception applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of a motion to modify attachment is appealable	Kehl contends the denial is appealable under collateral order.	Centrix argues the denial is not final and not excepted from final judgment rule.	Final judgment rule bars the appeal; collateral order exception not satisfied.
Whether the two Thaxter Lane LLC attachments were improper	Kehl asserts improper attachment since parties were not named in Centrix’s complaint and not served.	Centrix maintains proper attachment under governing rules and service; value concerns are separate from propriety.	Not reached due to dismissal on final judgment rule grounds.
Whether the Government Street security and valuation could justify removal of certain attachments	Kehl contends Government Street equity sufficed to satisfy any judgment and attachments on LLC properties should be removed.	Centrix relies on evidence of current value and notes securing the debt; modification should occur only if appropriate.	Not reached due to final judgment rule dismissal.

Bond v. Bond, 2011 ME 105 (Me. 2011) (collateral order analysis for interlocutory appeals and irreparable harm considerations)
Official Post Confirmation Comm. of Creditors Holding Unsecured Claims v. Markheim, 2005 ME 81 (Me. 2005) (collateral order exception in attachment-related appeals)
Lindner v. Barry, 2003 ME 91 (Me. 2003) (immediate appeal from grant of attachment-related orders)
Morton v. Miller, 600 A.2d 395 (Me. 1991) (modification of attachment order; contemporaneous evidence reliance)
DiPietro v. Casco N. Bank, 490 A.2d 215 (Me. 1985) (denial of dissolution of ex parte attachments is appealable under collateral order rule)
Jim Mitchell & Jed Davis, P.A. v. Lavigne, 2001 ME 67 (Me. 2001) (requirement to seek dissolution hearing before appealing an ex parte attachment)
Nynex Worldwide Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Dineen, 1999 ME 166 (Me. 1999) (timeliness and ability to appeal after attachment order; waiver concerns)
Spack v. Puorro, 1997 ME 13 (Me. 1997) (early appellate handling of attachment-related challenges)