U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Mackenzie
149 A.3d 267
| Me. | 2016Background
- In 2001 Mackenzie and Hooper acquired two Leeds parcels; Hooper later executed a loan and Mackenzie joined the mortgage securing it.
- Beneficial Maine sent notices of default and right to cure in December 2013 after payments ceased in 2011, and filed a foreclosure complaint in March 2014 attaching those notices.
- Beneficial assigned the loan and mortgage to U.S. Bank Trust; the Bank substituted as plaintiff during the action.
- Mackenzie moved for summary judgment arguing the statutory notices were defective under 14 M.R.S. § 6111; the court treated the dispute as testing the complaint and attached notices and found the notices noncompliant.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, expressly permitting the Bank to reissue a compliant notice and refile; Mackenzie appealed the form of the disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mackenzie) | Defendant's Argument (Bank) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defective notice of right to cure is a merits defect requiring judgment for defendant | Defective notices substantively defeat the Bank’s foreclosure claim and warrant summary judgment in her favor | Bank argued Mackenzie failed to make a proper Rule 56 evidentiary record and that the notices were sufficient | Court treated the challenge as a Rule 12(b)(6) attack on the complaint; a finding that the notices were defective reaches the merits, so dismissal must be with prejudice (adjudication on the merits) |
| Whether the appellate court should review Bank’s contention that notices were sufficient when Bank did not cross-appeal | Mackenzie sought reversal to final judgment | Bank urged reversal of relief below | Because Bank did not cross-appeal, it forfeited that relief; appellate review limited to whether dismissal’s form (with or without prejudice) was correct |
| Whether a dismissal for failure to plead statutory notice can be labeled without prejudice to allow refiling after new notice | Dismissal without prejudice improperly allows relitigation despite merits adjudication | Bank favored allowing resubmission and refiling | Court held that when the notice defect decides the merits, dismissal functions as an adjudication and must be with prejudice; statements about future rights to reissue notices are premature/advisory and should be left for future actual controversies |
| Whether the trial court erred treating a Rule 56 motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) evaluation based on the complaint attachments | Mackenzie relied on the complaint and attached notices only | Bank contended Rule 56 evidentiary defects barred relief | Court concluded both parties and court treated the motion as a 12(b)(6) challenge properly here because the notices were part of the complaint; therefore consideration was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Girouard, 123 A.3d 216 (Me. 2015) (holding defective notice of right to cure reaches merits)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tannenbaum, 126 A.3d 734 (Me. 2015) (standing to appeal and limits on advisory rulings)
- Potter, Prescott, Jamieson & Nelson, P.A. v. Campbell, 708 A.2d 283 (Me. 1998) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is an adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice)
- Andrews v. Sheepscot Island Co., 138 A.3d 1197 (Me. 2016) (documents attached to complaint are incorporated and may be considered)
- Clark v. Hancock Cty. Comm’rs, 87 A.3d 712 (Me. 2014) (courts should avoid issuing advisory opinions on hypothetical future controversies)
- Costa v. Vogel, 777 A.2d 827 (Me. 2001) (cross-appeal requirement to alter judgment in a way different from appellant’s request)
- Richards v. Soucy, 610 A.2d 268 (Me. 1992) (Rule 12(b)(6) tests legal sufficiency of complaint)