Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jeffrey White, 127 A.3d 538

Wells Fargo filed foreclosure in July 2011, alleging it held an interest in Jeffrey White’s mortgage by assignment from MERS (which had been nominee for the original lender). The complaint did not allege any acquisition of the mortgage other than the MERS assignment.
White initially answered pro se asserting Wells Fargo lacked standing; counsel entered in June 2013 and represented White thereafter.
On January 29, 2014, White (with counsel) consented to and the court entered a final judgment of foreclosure and sale, providing a 180-day redemption period; White did not appeal and redemption expired July 2014.
In September 2014 White moved under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and (4), asserting mistake about Wells Fargo’s standing (relying on Bank of Am. v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89) and contending the judgment was void for lack of standing.
The District Court denied relief: (1) Rule 60(b)(1) relief was inappropriate because White knowingly and deliberately consented to judgment with counsel; (2) Rule 60(b)(4) relief was denied because standing is justiciability (not jurisdiction), White had an opportunity and incentive to challenge standing earlier, and finality outweighed a post-judgment attack.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, concluding no abuse of discretion on Rule 60(b)(1) and that the judgment was not void under Rule 60(b)(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(1) relief for mistake is warranted because White and Wells Fargo mistakenly believed MERS’s assignment gave Wells Fargo standing	White: parties were mistaken about standing and could not have known the correct law until Greenleaf I (2014)	Wells Fargo: no mutual mistake; White and counsel deliberately declined to litigate standing; this is attempt to anticipate future law	Denied — no abuse of discretion; White knowingly consented to judgment despite opportunity to litigate standing
Whether judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) for lack of standing/jurisdiction	White: failure to prove standing deprives court of authority, so judgment is void and may be set aside at any time	Wells Fargo: standing is justiciability, defendant had prior opportunity to challenge; finality weighs against post-judgment attack	Denied — standing is justiciability not jurisdiction; prior opportunity to litigate bars this post-judgment attack; judgment not void

Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Saunders, 2 A.3d 289 (Me. 2010) (MERS as nominee provides no interest in mortgage beyond right to record)
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Harp, 10 A.3d 718 (Me. 2011) (defendant may challenge plaintiff’s ownership of the mortgage when plaintiff lacks ownership)
Bank of Am. v. Greenleaf, 96 A.3d 700 (Me. 2014) (clarifying justiciability/standing issues in foreclosure context)
Hamill v. Bay Bridge Assocs., 714 A.2d 829 (Me. 1998) (Rule 60(b)(4) — judgment is either valid or void; relief available when void)
Standish Tel. Co. v. Saco River Tel. & Tel. Co., 555 A.2d 478 (Me. 1989) (strong policy favoring finality of judgments)
Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Auth., 290 A.2d 362 (Me. 1972) (Rule 60(b)(1) reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Donley v. Donley, 686 A.2d 943 (Vt. 1996) (party cannot raise standing post-judgment when they had prior opportunity to contest it)
Northeast Bank N.A. v. Crochere, 438 A.2d 266 (Me. 1981) (factors balancing finality and validity when relitigating subject-matter issues)