Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee [etc.] v. Kevin Wilk
2013 ME 79
| Me. | 2013Background
- Wilk appeals a district court foreclosure judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank under 14 M.R.S. § 6321.
- Deutsche Bank asserted mortgage ownership through a chain of assignments from MERS to IndyMac to FDIC to OneWest and finally to Deutsche Bank.
- The note was indorsed in blank and the district court admitted the note, mortgage, and several mortgage assignments.
- A controversy existed over whether the assignments properly proved Deutsche Bank’s ownership of the mortgage, especially given timing conflicts among the 2010 FDIC assignment and subsequent transfers.
- The district court relied on assignments attached to the complaint to prove ownership, and entered judgment for Deutsche Bank for foreclosure.
- Wilk argued Deutsche Bank failed to prove proper ownership; the court later vacated and remanded, finding the ownership evidence insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to enforce the promissory note | Wilk contends DB failed to prove it holds the note. | Wilk argues DB is holder, via possession and blank indorsement. | DB qualified as holder and could enforce the note. |
| Ownership of the mortgage | DB attached assignments showing chain from MERS to IndyMac to FDIC to DB; ownership proven. | DB failed to prove proper ownership; inconsistent assignments undermine title. | DB failed to prove ownership of the mortgage; chain did not conclusively establish title. |
| Effect of documents attached to the complaint | Assignments attached to the complaint prove ownership. | Those attachments are not proper evidence of ownership if not admitted at trial. | Error to rely on unadmitted attachments as evidence of ownership. |
| Harmless error and estoppel by after-acquired property | Even if attachments were improper, estoppel by after-acquired property could validate title. | Estoppel does not apply absent a warranty deed and appropriate conveyance language. | Estoppel by after-acquired property does not apply; no valid basis to confer ownership. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomes, 2013 ME 60 (Me. 2013) (holder of note and right to enforce under 14 M.R.S. § 6321)
- Sargent, 2000 ME 153 (Me. 2000) (foreclosure standards and burden of proof for mortgage chain)
- Jusseaume, 2011 ME 43 (Me. 2011) (admissibility of evidence and use of pleadings in judgments)
- Coty, 391 A.2d 830 (Me. 1978) (evidence of records and judicial notice limitations)
- Wells v. Powers, 2005 ME 62 (Me. 2005) (deeds and conveyance limitations and property interests)
- Libby v. Brooks, 653 A.2d 422 (Me. 1995) (after-acquired-property concepts in conveyances)
- Bennett, 38 A.2d 372 (Me. 1897) (limitations on after-acquired title in conveyances)
- Giobbi v. Bramson, 560 A.2d 1079 (Me. 1989) (ownership and transfer of real property interests)