Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Bradbury
32 A.3d 1014
Me.2011Background
- Bradbury challenges a District Court foreclosure judgment against her on a Denmark, Maine residential property owned by Bradbury; Fannie Mae sued and named GMAC Mortgage, LLC as servicer; the court granted partial summary judgment and later denied Bradbury’s request for contempt against GMAC but sanctioned Fannie Mae for a bad-faith affidavit by Stephan; the court awarded Bradbury attorney fees and costs incurred defending the bad-faith affidavit and then dismissed the complaint without prejudice; Bradbury appeals asserting error on contempt and fee issues.
- During discovery/deposition, GMAC's Jeffrey Stephan testified he lacks process for reading or reviewing affidavits he signs, does not review attached exhibits, and signs thousands of affidavits monthly; deposition prompted Bradbury to move for a protective order and a Rule 56(g) bad-faith affidavit finding and for attorney fees; the court found bad faith and ordered Fannie Mae to pay Bradbury fees and costs but declined to find GMAC in contempt.
- Fannie Mae sought protection under Rule 26(c) and Bradbury sought Rule 56(g) sanctions and potential contempt; the court denied the protective order due to lack of good cause, found Stephan’s affidavit was submitted in bad faith, and awarded Bradbury fees; after fees, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
- Bradbury argues that GMAC should be held in contempt under Rule 56(g); the court declined to impose contempt on GMAC, limiting sanction to Fannie Mae’s payment of fees; Bradbury also argues for additional fees and costs related to opposing the protective order.
- Bradbury ultimately prevails in part on the fee sanction but not on a GMAC contempt finding; the appellate court affirms the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt under Rule 56(g) for GMAC | Bradbury argues GMAC should be held in contempt for the bad-faith affidavit. | GMAC argues discretion, not mandatory contempt, and no prior finding requires contempt. | Discretionary ruling affirmed; no contempt against GMAC affirmed. |
| Sanction sufficiency and contempt scope | sanctions for bad faith affidavit were insufficient if GMAC not contemned; more severe contempt warranted. | Sanctions against Fannie Mae adequate; contempt against GMAC not required. | Sanctions within court’s discretion; no additional contempt finding required. |
| Award of attorney fees and costs for opposing protective order | Bradbury entitled to fees and costs associated with opposing the protective order. | Fees already awarded under 56(g) sanctions; no further award justified. | No error; Rule 37(a)(4) award supported; no further award needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Campbell, 960 A.2d 324 (Me. 2008) (discernible discretion in contempt and sanctions)
- HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Murphy, 19 A.3d 815 (Me. 2011) (Rule 11 safety and integrity of summary judgment process)
- Fort Hill Builders, Inc. v. Nat’l Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 866 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1989) (rare use of Rule 56(g) sanctions; contempt not commonly imposed)
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Kimball, 27 A.3d 1087 (Vt. 2011) (state court reliance on 56(g)-type reasoning and sanctions)