Kittery Point Partners, LLC v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 180 A.3d 1091

Kittery Point Partners, LLC (KPP) received title to a Kittery property in 2005, executed a note and mortgage, which were assigned to Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (Bayview); M&T Mortgage later is involved as servicer.
KPP defaulted in 2008; Bayview commenced foreclosure; in Feb. 2009 KPP (through a family member) executed a delinquency repayment agreement that released Bayview from "any and all claims." Bayview voluntarily dismissed the foreclosure in Apr. 2010.
In Aug. 2011 KPP sued Bayview, M&T, and a former member of KPP, seeking declaratory relief that the note and mortgage were invalid and restitution of payments; the third defendant became largely nonresponsive.
After protracted discovery, Bayview and M&T moved for summary judgment in Feb. 2016; the trial court entered a partial summary judgment on Nov. 30, 2016, stating the judgment was final as to KPP vs. Bayview and M&T and that there was "no just reason for delay."
KPP appealed the partial judgment. The Law Court treated the trial court’s order as a Rule 54(b) certification but found the order lacked the required specific findings and reasoned explanation for certification.
Because the trial court’s Rule 54(b) certification was inadequate, the Law Court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory without reaching the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Nov. 30, 2016 order was a final, appealable judgment under M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)	The partial judgment is final as to Bayview and M&T and should be appealable now	The trial court properly certified partial final judgment permitting immediate appeal	The order amounted to a Rule 54(b) certification in form but was not properly supported and thus the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory
Whether the trial court made adequate findings and explained "no just reason for delay" to support Rule 54(b) certification	KPP did not specifically challenge the adequacy of findings below but seeks review of the judgment on the merits	Bayview and M&T relied on the court’s statement that no just reason for delay exists to justify immediate appeal	The court’s statement was a summary recitation of Rule 54(b); it lacked specific, reasoned findings required for certification, so certification was improper

Safety Ins. Grp. v. Dawson, 116 A.3d 948 (Me. 2015) (discusses final judgment rule and appealability)
Marquis v. Town of Kennebunk, 36 A.3d 861 (Me. 2011) (requires particularized explanation for Rule 54(b) certification)
Guidi v. Town of Turner, 845 A.2d 1189 (Me. 2004) (trial court must make specific findings and a reasoned statement to certify partial final judgment)
Fleet Nat'l Bank v. Gardiner Hillside Estates, Inc., 802 A.2d 408 (Me. 2002) (articulates the strong policy against piecemeal review)
McClare v. Rocha, 86 A.3d 22 (Me. 2014) (lists factors the court considers when reviewing a Rule 54(b) certification)