Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. David A. Abildgaard, 229 A.3d 789

In 2006 Abildgaard executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems as nominee for Wilmington; Wilmington is the current mortgagee and Rushmore is the loan servicer.
Rushmore sent a notice of default and right to cure to Abildgaard in June 2017; Wilmington filed a foreclosure complaint in August 2017.
At a March 2019 bench trial the court admitted the note, mortgage, modification, and assignments but excluded Wilmington’s proffered notice of default as noncompliant with 14 M.R.S. § 6111.
After the exclusion, Wilmington rested without offering evidence on several other required elements of a foreclosure claim and expressly stated it would not present further exhibits while the notice was excluded.
Abildgaard moved under M.R. Civ. P. 50(d) for judgment as a matter of law; the court entered judgment for Abildgaard, and Wilmington appealed arguing the exclusion of the notice was erroneous.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, emphasizing that Wilmington failed to present evidence of all foreclosure elements and that Wilmington could have continued presenting evidence or sought interlocutory review under M.R. App. P. 24 instead of resting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in excluding the notice of default and right to cure under 14 M.R.S. § 6111	The notice complied with § 6111 and should have been admitted	The notice was noncompliant and could be excluded	Appellate court did not review the exclusion on the merits and affirmed judgment because plaintiff failed to prove all elements at trial
Whether Wilmington could obtain appellate review of the exclusion before final judgment	Wilmington implicitly sought reversal of the exclusion on appeal	Abildgaard argued appellate review was barred as piecemeal and interlocutory	Court held Wilmington could have sought interlocutory review under M.R. App. P. 24 but did not, so piecemeal review was barred
Whether judgment as a matter of law was appropriate after Wilmington rested without presenting remaining elements	Wilmington asked for remand to resume trial if exclusion reversed	Abildgaard argued judgment was proper because Wilmington failed to prove its claim	Judgment for Abildgaard affirmed: plaintiff’s voluntary rest without proving required elements warranted judgment against it

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 96 A.3d 700 (Me. 2014) (sets out the eight elements a plaintiff must prove in a foreclosure action)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Girouard, 123 A.3d 216 (Me. 2015) (mortgagor entitled to judgment when mortgagee fails to present necessary evidence)
In re Spring Valley Dev., 300 A.2d 736 (Me. 1973) (counsels against piecemeal appellate review)
Hand v. Nickerson, 95 A.2d 813 (Me. 1953) (older precedent endorsing final judgment rule)
Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Estate of Faulkner, 957 A.2d 94 (Me. 2008) (describes M.R. App. P. 24 procedure for interlocutory questions of law)