Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Antoine A. Girouard
123 A.3d 216
| Me. | 2015Background
- Wells Fargo pursued foreclosure on property owned by Antoine and Jessica Girouard in Lewiston, Maine.
- December 2012 notice of default and right to cure under 14 M.R.S. § 6111 demanded a cure amount and warned of possible accrual of other charges.
- In July 2014, the Girouards moved for summary judgment asserting the notice did not comply with § 6111 as interpreted in Greenleaf.
- Wells Fargo agreed the notice was deficient and urged summary judgment for the Girouards, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the Girouards but then dismissed the action without prejudice.
- The Girouards pursued post-judgment motions to rectify the order, leading to an amended order that granted summary judgment in part but continued dismissal without prejudice.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the partial summary judgment and dismissal, remanding for reinstatement of full summary judgment in favor of the Girouards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wells Fargo's defective notice defeat the foreclosure claim on the merits? | Girouard (Wells Fargo) argues failure to meet § 6111/Greenleaf invalidates the claim. | Girouards contend notice defects prevent proof of a required element, entitling judgment for them on the merits. | Yes; summary judgment for Girouards on the merits was proper. |
| Was the disposition properly characterized as a dismissal without prejudice? | Wells Fargo argues the order disposed of the case only to some extent and may allow future actions. | Girouards contend the order was a final merits judgment, not a partial dismissal. | The disposition was not a proper partial dismissal; remanded for full entry of summary judgment. |
| Is remand for reinstatement of full summary judgment appropriate? | N/A | N/A | Yes; remand to reinstate full summary judgment in favor of the Girouards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89 (Me. 2014) (establishes that notice of default must state precise cure amount under § 6111)
- Dutil v. Burns, 1997 ME 1 (Me. 1997) (statutory prerequisites preclude maintaining certain actions)
- Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co. v. Alexander, 411 A.2d 74 (Me. 1980) (noted for procedural guidance on standing and related issues)
- Allen v. McCann, 2015 ME 84 (Me. 2015) (taxonomy for reviewing appeal in summary judgment context)