U.S. Bank, N.A. v. David R. Tannenbaum, 2015 ME 141

U.S. Bank (after substitutions of parties) brought a residential foreclosure action against David R. Tannenbaum based on a 2005 note and mortgage and alleged payments missed beginning October 1, 2010.
A nonjury trial was held in Lewiston District Court on September 30, 2014.
The District Court entered judgment for Tannenbaum, finding the Bank failed to prove it gave the statutorily required notice of default under 14 M.R.S. § 6111.
Despite deciding the case on the merits for Tannenbaum, the District Court also reserved to the parties the right to relitigate all issues in a properly commenced future foreclosure action.
Tannenbaum appealed only the portion of the judgment that prospectively reserved to the Bank the right to relitigate the same issues; he did not challenge the merits ruling in his favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court could enter a final judgment for Tannenbaum on the merits and simultaneously reserve the Bank's right to relitigate the same foreclosure issues in a future action	The reservation improperly permits relitigation despite a final judgment; it creates adverse collateral consequences and is reviewable	The court may preserve the Bank's right to bring a second foreclosure action by expressly reserving relitigation rights (analogizing to dismissal without prejudice)	Court vacated the reservation portion — a final judgment on the merits cannot be converted into a dismissal-without-prejudice merely by stating parties may relitigate absent special reasons
Whether special reasons existed to justify the court's reservation (i.e., exception to res judicata)	N/A (Tannenbaum argued no special reasons justified reservation)	The District Court relied on an exception applied in Norton allowing later suit when a prior judgment is effectively without prejudice	No special reasons were identified here (unlike Norton); reservation was improper and therefore vacated

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 96 A.3d 700 (Me. 2014) (holding that statutory notice of default under section 6111 is a substantive element of proof in foreclosure)
Chase Home Fin., LLC v. Higgins, 985 A.2d 508 (Me. 2009) (same principle that compliance with foreclosure notice statute is an element of the plaintiff's case)
Norton v. Town of Long Island, 883 A.2d 889 (Me. 2005) (recognized exception to claim preclusion where a court’s judgment is effectively without prejudice and special reasons justify later suit)
Portland Water Dist. v. Town of Standish, 940 A.2d 1097 (Me. 2008) (describing doctrine of res judicata and its elements)
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Sullivan-Thorne, 81 A.3d 371 (Me. 2013) (restating res judicata elements)