U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for the MLMI Surf Trust Series 2006-BC2 v. Theodore W. Thomes
2013 ME 60
| Me. | 2013Background
- The case involves U.S. Bank, N.A. (trustee) seeking foreclosure and unjust enrichment against Theodore and Renee Thomes over a Windham property.
- In 2005 Renee refinanced the property; the loan was taken solely in Renee’s name, with Ted listed as a joint titleholder but not a borrower.
- Ted did not participate in the refinancing, did not review closing documents, and believed the transaction was a home-improvement loan.
- Renee executed the loan documents; the bank possessed the original note endorsed in blank and asserted ownership/economic beneficiary status.
- The trial court ruled for the Thomeses on all counts, including unjust enrichment, prompting the bank’s appeal.
- The appellate court applied Cloutier to assess proof of ownership and enforceability of the note for foreclosure and reviewed the unjust enrichment claim for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foreclosure: whether bank proved ownership/enforceability of the note after Cloutier | Bank identified owner/economic beneficiary and power to enforce | Thomeses dispute ownership and enforceability proof | Bank entitled to foreclosure against Renee; Count I judgment vacated and remanded for consistent proceedings |
| Unjust enrichment: whether Ted was unjustly enriched by Renee’s loan | Bank seeks recovery for Ted’s benefit from Renee’s loan | Ted lacked knowledge of the benefit and acceptance was not inequitable | No unjust enrichment; judgment for Thomeses on Count IV affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Cloutier, 61 A.3d 1242 (Me. 2013) (defines proof of ownership/enforceability for foreclosure under 14 M.R.S. § 6321)
- Pelletier v. Pelletier, 36 A.3d 903 (Me. 2012) (standard for reviewing trial court findings on factual issues)
- Estate of Miller, 960 A.2d 1140 (Me. 2008) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Estate of Anderson, 988 A.2d 977 (Me. 2010) (requirements for unjust enrichment claim)
- Howard & Bowie, P.A. v. Collins, 759 A.2d 707 (Me. 2000) (significance of whether enrichment is unjust)