111 A.3d 39
Me.2015Background
- CitiMortgage filed a foreclosure suit in district court after default on a Lewiston home loan; judgment for CitiMortgage followed a non-jury trial, but Chartiers appeal claimed the notice of default failed to meet the mortgage terms; the mortgage involved Cornerstone, MERS, Merrimack, and CitiMortgage with complex ownership transfers; CitiMortgage sent a December 2, 2008 default notice, while the mortgage was assigned to MERS on December 14, 2009; the trial court found the notice complied with the mortgage terms; on appeal, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of judgment for the Chartiers; the dispositive issue was whether CitiMortgage, at the time of the notice, qualified as the “lender” capable of sending a compliant notice under the mortgage
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CitiMortgage was the ‘lender’ authorized to send the notice of default | Chartiers: CitiMortgage not the lender under the mortgage definition | CitiMortgage: acted as MERS’s agent and/or implied authority | CitiMortgage not the lender; notice failed under the mortgage terms |
| Whether the notice of default satisfied the mortgage’s required terms given ownership split | Notice complied with mortgage terms | Ownership separation invalidates notice as from non-lender | Judgment vacated; remanded for entry of judgment for Chartiers |
Key Cases Cited
- Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Hankins, 2011 ME 82 (Me. 2011) (contract interpretation of ‘lender’ defined in mortgage)
- Bank of Me. v. Hatch, 2012 ME 35 (Me. 2012) (interpretation of mortgage notice sufficiency; §6111 framework (pre-2010))
- Bangor Sav. Bank v. Richard, 2014 ME 20 (Me. 2014) (notice requirements relative to statutory regime; preserved arguments)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89 (Me. 2014) (standing and assignment issues in MERS context)