U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Manning
2014 ME 96
| Me. | 2014Background
- Bank filed an amended residential foreclosure complaint against Manning in July 2010 seeking to collect on a $520,000 note and associated mortgage.
- Discovery deadlines were set and repeatedly extended; a November 9, 2012 order imposed a $150 sanction and threatened dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance.
- Manning sought a hearing under Rule 26(g)(1); the court issued the discovery order two days later without a hearing and directed payment of $150 within 30 days.
- Bank paid the $150 on December 17, 2012; Manning argued the late payment was not a basis for immediate dismissal and sought continuances.
- February 1, 2013 order dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with the discovery order; April 2013 order amended to without prejudice, then reaffirmed with prejudice in September 2013 and appealed.
- Court vacated the September 19, 2013 judgment, holding the dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion and that Rule 52(a) findings were improper given no trial or hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice for late sanction payment was abuse | Manning argues late payment was not substantial noncompliance justifying ultimate sanction. | Bank contends sanctions and dismissal were proper given discovery violations and noncompliance. | Abused discretion; late payment not sufficient. |
| Whether the sanction order without a hearing complied with Rule 37(a)(4) | Sanction imposed without a hearing, as required by Rule 37(a)(4). | Order proximate to discovery dispute permitted without hearing under Rule 26(g)(l)-(2). | Unauthorized absence of hearing; error. |
| Whether the court could impose findings of fact and conclusions of law on a motion without a trial | Rule 52(a) permits findings on motions, not initial findings without a record. | Court should provide findings supporting its dispositive ruling. | Error; Rule 52(a) findings improperly entered without trial. |
| Whether the September 19, 2013 order should be vacated and remanded | Final judgment based on prior errors should be vacated. | Court should affirm its earlier rulings if supported by record. | Judgment vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Bank N.A. v. Sawyer, 2014 ME 81 (Me. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for dismissal with prejudice)
- Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Bartlett, 2014 ME 37 (Me. 2014) (sanctions and dismissals must be carefully scrutinized)
- Douglas v. Martel, 2003 ME 132 (Me. 2003) (broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions)
- Estate of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24 (Me. 2011) (rare use of ultimate sanctions requires scrutiny)
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Demers, 2009 ME 19 (Me. 2009) (noncompliance can support dismissal as sanctions)
- Bertin v. Bertin, 2013 ME 70 (Me. 2013) (interpretation of Rule 52(a) and findings on motions)