Wayne Knope v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

victim, the convic- affirm we assault

tion. entry is:

Judgment affirmed. 95ME

Wayne et al. KNOPE SERVICING, LLC TREE

GREEN

Docket: Yor-15-515 of Maine.

Supreme Judicial Court 9, 2016

Argued: June May

Decided: Bedard, (orally),

Patrick S. Esq. Bedard Bobrow, P.C., Eliot, & appellants Doro- thy Wayne Knope Mohan, A. Cathy Bri- Esq., and Richard ansky, Esq. (orally), English, McCarter & LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, and Paul J. Greene, Esq., Advocates, Sports Global LLC, Portland, for appellee Green Tree Servicing, LLC ALEXANDER, MEAD, Panel: GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. ALEXANDER, MEAD,

Majority: GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, JJ. HJELM, J.

Concurrence/Dissent: ALEXANDER, J. Dorothy Knope Wayne appeal Superior

from a Court O’Neil, (York J.), following a non- County, jury judgment applied principles trial. The enrichment to determine that the charges are liable for be- certain undisputed yond principal amounts pursuant owed to a interest Servicing, note owned LLC. The note had been secured but failed con- vey to Tree all of the con- contend parties, tractual application bars established rules enrichment to allow re- obligations pur- tention of funds that were suant to ineffective but were damage that rendered Be- water to the note. severe obligations significant Faced decision, not house court, in did uninhabitable. its the trial cause house, repair costs charges that were sufficiently distinguish payments not make further note from to the of, portion two except the escrow only pursu- charges that were 2014, May In monthly payments. judg- the mortgage, we vacate the ant to (2016), Knopes § the to to M.R.S. for the deter- remand ment and court a an Tree written demand amount, may Tree sent Green any, if Green mine what note liability under accounting of their the to the note. retain but, at- mortgage, with earlier as and CASE HISTORY I. by the Green tempts at contact respond. Tree did following facts either al- were [¶-3] complaint and leged Knopes’ in the 2014, Knopes a filed May In the [¶ 5] a was default admitted deemed Tree, seeking a against complaint Green Tree, see Civ. M.R. entered Green the amount declaratory judgment to as 98, 8(d); Carpenter, P. Ireland and their note to Tree on owed Green 35, by the trial or found to sec- accounting pursuant mortgage, an in the by supported court the evidence and relief, 6301, and determi- equitable tion a 2004, Doro- In record at trial. November performance impracticability nation Wayne and thy Knope executed deliv- to been Knopes the had unable $324,940 pay- a ered note of rental the loss payments make due to able GMAC Mortgage,Corporation, this Shortly income. after the filed was purchase a house Eliot. The house action, separate a commenced Green Tree property, not income-producing to be an action foreclosure. the Knopes. secure for the To residence timely to file a Tree failed Green [¶ 6] debt, mortgage the executed on Knopes’ complaint, the answer Registration Mortgage Electronic deed motion, entered Knopes’ the clerk the (MERS), Inc. nominee for Systems, as: P, 55(a). After default. See M.R. Civ. early Corporation.1 In Mortgage GMAC unsuccessfully set moved Green Tree 2013, assets purchased Tree various Green default, ordered that the the aside court servicing rights relief hearing the held determine GMAC, including Knopes’ the MERS loan. Knopes. available assigned, purportedly April but because Tree Green pending, but this action was [¶ While right to rec- acquired only the had held, hearing was before mortgage, ord property. Pur- repaired and then sold than nothing more conveyed Green by reached agreement to an suant America, N.A. right. Bank was dis- parties, foreclosure action ¶¶ 15-16, 96 A.3d Greenleaf, 2014 missed, Knopes paid and the portion of their undisputed both and, out- subject to the note pipes debt January [¶ 4] action, burst, additional resulting come amounts floor house second Inc., court, nominee Registration Systems, as both expressly Although recited 1." n mortgagee of record "FOR for GMAC and in evi- admitted THIS MORT- at, OF objection, PURPOSES RECORDING trial without identified dence lender, Electronic and Mortgage GMAC GAGE." in dispute. Specifically, regarding the effectiveness of as- $338,892.45, signment, light .in Tree’s surprise, assertion of granted which included amount court to submit parties agreed principal leave evi- owed additional granted interest dence the issue additional $19,265.68 leave to file charged post-trial amount briefs. Knopes. Tree but contested In September is- amount disputed represented reimburse- sued a in favor for payments

ments been made unjust enrichment. $14,701.49in property Tree: tax- The court determined that es and insurance on property; $945 assignment from to Tree .Green fees; $2,769.19 property preservation give was not sufficient to “con- Green Tree fees”; in. “legal “foreclosure and $850 authority tractual to enforce parties agreed The they fees.” would by the en- mortgage.” unjust “[T]o avoid litigate question of whether Green richment,” judgment allowed Green Tree was entitled.to all part retain or of Tree disputed to the entire amount retain disputed sum. because Green Tree paid expenses had that were Knopes’ responsibility under The non-jury

[¶ court held a trial in 8] the mortgage protect to Green Tree’s “se- July Knopes pressed where the interest,” curity keep to property claim for judgment declaring their saleable Knopes were in while default. Tree to was retain entitled Knopes The timely appealed. disputed sum. The evidence included a note, copy promissory which the II. LEGAL ANALYSIS agreed had been owned Green Knopes challenge the [¶ 11] The discharged. it before was The note unjust application court’s to enrichment default, provided that the event right award to retain of the note be entitled holder to disputed sum. both a default We review expenses the costs recover enforc- judgment declaratory and a note, ing including attorney reasonable abuse See Richter Ercoli v. discretion. A fees. deed also admitted was ni, ¶ 404; 2010 ME 994 A.2d Linne The specified evidence. deed Assessor, han Tax Leasing v. State that the lender would be entitled reim- ¶33, 30, ME 898 A.2d 408. bursement for its tax- property payment es; insurance; hazard costs prevail To ón a [¶12] claim and, protect property; to secure and in unjust enrichment, complaining party nonpayment on the event at- “(1) it must show that benefit conferred torney fees and costs foreclose. the other party; other had benefit; appreciation knowledge of argued The at trial that the

[¶ 9] or retention of the acceptance from MERS convey benefit circumstances as effective was under such it mortgage-based rights make retain reimbursement expenses paid by benefit payment and that its value.” without Assocs., Gorman, Eye Maine therefore not P.A. Care v. entitled (citation 36, 17, 942 payments expenses retain 2008 ME omitted). only by way, doctrine of un allowed Because the previously “recovery for the ques- just-enrichment allows raised Nothing that note. when there recoverable of the benefit retained value when, relationship, but note indicates that the no contractual justice, the law grounds bargained fairness for were entitled to legal moral performance of a compels they most the benefits received—the Balano, duty pay.” of their payment, Paffhausen ¶47, 6, taxes, insurance, 708 A.2d property preserva- Thus, costs.2 Tree’s retention of contrac of a existence on an for those parties that relationship between the tual theory barred the law is not “precludes sums in dispute addresses articulated There is Restatement. on a enrich recovery expanding apparent no rationale for Pitman, Nadeau 1999 ME ment.” apply limiting principle Restatement’s ¶ 14, 863; Paffhausen, some contrac- who simply have Thus, limiting 708 A.2d 269. another, tual with one where availability of restitution principle contract does not address the basis is that “[a] for the enrichment claim. obligations of valid contract defines the scope, as to matters within its District Court United States that extent any inquiry displacing issues similar to the limiting addressed (Third) unjust enrichment.” Restatement in Federal principle the Restatement 2(2) § of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Company Insurance v. Maine Yankee added). (Am. 2011) (emphasis Inst. Law Company, Atomic Power F.Supp.2d 183 is rationale this rule that behind 76, (D. 2001), discussing 85 Me. whether not to redefine courts should intervene contracting parties to occupy “intended the rights obligations parties that have and relationships of their financial universe already through defined themselves provisions of’ the terms and their contract. Corp. See Wal-Noon voluntary contract. Yankee, Maine opinion our applied which Hill, Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d Pitman, in Nadeau v. not bar recov- does (1975) (“[W]here parties have free the enrichment. Maine unjust ery based fairly for cer ly, voluntarily bargained Yankee expressly “parties cautions that exchange undertaking tain benefits may ... number of contractual obligations, certain it would be relationships having nothing do with the liability and with imply different in question issue the Court can- Law for which party draw one benefits he unjust not have intended to foreclose all is enti bargained and to which he has parties.” claims enrichment such between tled”). Yankee, Me. F.Supp.2d at Because the “failed” [¶ 14] Maine Yankee opinion contract looked existing ex- con- parties’ most of the terms to determine contract paid at issue not tract whether the penses here were presumptively because Green Tree 2. The these benefits acceptance insufficiency and the of these benefit as to the the MERS notice as facilitating payments the sale signment, Green cannot recover repair home in and with of their reasonable accepted by that facilitat encumbrances, argument precludes out payment of of their home and ed sale dissent, suggested referencing Mort Opinion Concurrin^Dissenting note. Registration gage Systems, Electronic Inc. ¶¶ 41-42. Saunders, that (1) obligation at issue addressed had a-legally enforceable claim, unjust concluding obligation enrichment that it pay the taxes and insurance “simply did not the contract their property keep [did] and to the property (2) speak good benefit that would be repair; presumably under the upon” conferred Federal Insurance when right mistaken belief that it had the do payments Maine made protect Yankee behalf security so interest the third Federal Insur- thought acquired which it had to be reim- secondarily so, responsible. doing ance was Id. at bursed for stepped 85-86. Because claim concerned obli- in—“not as a volunteer”—and gations parties’ contract did not Knopes’ taxes, address, unjust costs,3 claim was preservation enrichment being the result cognizable long as it the Knopes to; the sub- satisfied no unjust stantive elements contract between the and Green doctrine. Id. parties’ rights addressed the and re- sponsibilities taxes, respect insur- [¶ 17] The thus clarified ance, preservation costs, question relevant whether basis subject matter putative enrichment claim con- award. cerns the already voluntarily Holding liable res defined titution contract. Id. The court concluded to avoid enrichment does proceed represent Maine could its impermissible Yankee “an run end voluntary In- structuring enrichment claim because Federal around of relation ships existing, legally surance had an enforce- consequences,” and their Me. Yan kee, payments obligation able make certain if par at so; (2) (the note) a third failed to ties’ agreement do Maine contractual Yankee in—not as a volunteer— contains no “stepped voluntary structuring of result paid, being obligations and the Federal and regarding payment the of (3) to”; taxes, not Insurance and or preservation did the costs. As Yankee, contract the Insurance in Maine parties’ between Federal the contract here, note, Yankee “simply speak and Maine did not address the the does not benefit that Maine conferred on upon” Yankee the would be conferred benefit that Knopes Federal Insurance when the payment Maine Yankee Green Tree’s of taxes, insurance, payments. preservation made the Id. at 85-86. Id. costs. sound, reasoning Knopes prom- [¶ The court’s is argue 18] [¶ 20] The that the note, in issory originally and the same situation exists this case: executed between Recovery justif[ied in denied to in the ab Tree’s] intervention (Third) penalize a in order those who "volunteer” "to sence of of contract.” Restatement " 2(3) (Am. upon Unjust § ‘thrust benefits Federal others.' Insur Restitution & Enrichment Co., 2011). presents ance Co. v. Maine YankeeAtomic Power Law This case common Inst. (D. 2001) party receiving 183 83 Me. n.10 situation in a benefit (quoting § contemplated by of Restatement Restitution cmt. not a contract between the (Am. Here, 1937)). parties may Law. Inst. Green Tree in be liable for restitution order (“Mis repay § expectation was not a volunteer—its avoid See enrichment. id. obligation performance ment reasonable the taken and could another’s reasonably they gives expected not in performing party the restitu a claim taxes, insurance, obligor pay not have to the the to the extent preservation mistakenly property. fees In other benefit the obli- conferred on words, gor.”); “the circumstances of transaction the cmt. a. id. sometimes, adjudicated separate Mortgage Corpo- pro be Knopes and GMAC the Greenleaf, cre- ration, ceedings. See 2014 ME combined the ¶¶ 14-17, 700; Mortgage integrated an contractual Elec. ate Saunders, the Sys. 2010 ME Registration between Green proceeding Tree from precludes A.3d 289. ex- claim to retain at least regard With the

penditures that are not recoverable under $14,701.49paid property taxes and in However, note is promissory note. the surance, preser and the $946 mortgage, separate establishes, fees, the vation evidence separate promissory note’s are found, trial that each claims to enforcement from the related enrich elements Green Tree’s may have acted claim has ment been met: benefits mort- belief it was a mistaken Knopes; conferred on were import belief not gagee, does but appreciation knowledge of parties’ into the terms benefits; (3) acceptance or these re contract, note. only actual Knopes, tention after benefits mortgage, unlike the those enabled them to benefits any part the universe occupy other sell encum without parties’ relationships. financial brances, under such circumstances as note and the [¶ 21] Were make law, treated, mortgage contract under retain the value benefits. Gor those unit, in man, as one or as related transactions A.2d 707. parties, then actions volving the Because, mort- agreement, joined always the note would have to gage inapplicable invalid and mort adjudicated with actions Tree and bene- could gage. Parties not achieve dismissal fits were conferred insufficiently of claims under an asserted accordance with and are recoverable as assigned claims contract, under other the trial court to be under the note would have serted properly determined that these bar unitary proceeding, considered Tree to recoverable avoid ring judgment liability final until under Accordingly, enrichment. we affirm adjudicated.4 been note had portion judgment of that the trial court’s recover, the or authorized Actions under that [¶22] retain, taxes, the for may separate be treated and distinct insur- ance, costs, property preservation under note because notes and from actions the separate mortgag $16,646.49. from of vacate and total must and are unsecured We es, only for the differing may, sup- that of presenting issues remand reexamination prevents relitigation judicata claims the same res if: the Related involving privies be and same transaction involved in the must same are actions; (2) judgment joined Beegan in See both a valid final the action. (ob Schmidt, (Me. 1982) action; prior in- the entered and mat serving presented when for in there a final ters decision the second ac that were, might litigated plaintiff against plaintiff, has have been in the claims tion Jordan, extinguished St. the same defendant are action.” first John 5,¶ regard any part (quoting all or of the transac 945 A.2d 1232 Portland with tion, Water 23, 8,¶ transactions, Standish, or series connected out Dist. v. Town of 1097). arose), “The doctrine of which the action port recovery of the foreclosure fees instrument from legal and fees based on an enrich- convey rights. was insufficient those sums, ment and to theory determine what [¶ 27] After the fell' default any, if are under promissory note.5 due note and tried 'to unsuccessfully obtain information from about The is: entry owed, they they the amount this ac- filed in Judgment part affirmed and vacated tion to force resulting the issue. The trial in part. Superior Remanded to the focused whether the are liable proceedings Court for further in accor- charges paid certain dr incurred opinion. dance with Tree: property taxes and insurance J., HJELM, part concurring and Knopes’ preser- property, property part. dissenting in fees, fees,” “legal vation “foreclosure fees.” appeal requires This the Court Wayne Dorothy consider the extent of copy trial included a evidence liability to Knope’s pursuant note, of the promissory provided which they note executed that is default, that event of a holder of now owned note would be entitled to.recover mortgage they executed favor expenses costs and enforcing party—but properly third that was including attorney fees. Addi- reasonable assigned I to Green Tree. concur with tionally, presented the court with the Court’s conclusion that this matter must deed, that provided Superior be remanded Court lender would be entitled to reimbursement Knopes’ determine the lia- contract-based taxes; its hazard bility I disagree, the note. insurance; costs secure however, conclusion Court’s and, protect property; are or may be liable note, attorney nonpayment event of encompassed amount that within fees and the foreclose. costs to None the mortgage, respectfully and I dissent charges enumerated part opinion. the Court’s mortgage overlaps with the amounts due pursuant to the note. (York Superior County,

[¶ 26] Court O’Neil, J.) that, pursuant judgment, to a In its [¶29] determined trial enrichment, correctly determined contractually are liable for enforce the all amounts could not they due under both the note that execut- Mortgage Corpora-

ed in GMAC deficient instrument favor Am., Bank N.A. v. they from MERS. executed 89, “(T]o Greenleaf, GMAC, 2014 96 granted favor of to ME 700. A.3d enrichment,” however, unjust only right to record the mort- avoid gage. Tree court Green now owns note and allowed Tree retain to disputed is to enforce amount—including entitled its terms. entire acquire mortgage-based rights, did not that are pursu amounts recoverable however, the mortgage. because the of that ant to 38, ¶ Concurring/Dissenting Opinion, expenses. opinion suggest 5. The sure This at does unjust sup- indicates that enrichment cannot otherwise. port attorney fees claim for and foreclo- 704 view, therein). my when parties In the court’s award to This mortgage-based rights of those obli ex- themselves define their gations by entering on the into valid and en

penses equitable doctrine contract, unnecessary forceable it is unjust is erroneous two First, wholly inappropriate super for a to improper it to an reasons. amounted agreement parties’ sede the own and rede parties’ actual contrac- restructuring parties fine second, relationship. tual And point is ar equitable to create. This critical is not relief when its chosen entitled powerfully authority mort- ticulated that the claim based favorably: Court gage it knew should have known it itself views “[W]here fairly voluntarily points freely, I will these own. address bargained exchange certain benefits turn. undertaking obligations, certain A. Existence of Contractual Relation- imply a different ship liability from and withdraw one bargained for which he has explana I agree [¶ the Court’s 31] Corp. which he is v. entitled.” Wal-Noon tion of un principles the beneficent Hill, 605, 646, Cal.App.3d 119 Cal.Rptr. 45 enrichment. derlie the doctrine (1975); Gerlinger 651 see Ama also v. short, a remedy, it creates available Inc., zon.com, 838, circumstances, prevent “ineq limited 2004). (N.D. Indeed, it is very Cal. benefit,” uitable of a Horton & retention provides absence of a contract McGehee, § Maine Civil Remedies 7-3 at justification for “on the law intervene (4th 2004), “recovery ed. and allows grounds justice” fairness and the value of the benefit retained when through judicial application equita relationship, there is no contractual but ble Na doctrine enrichment. See when, grounds jus on the of fairness and ¶ deau, 1999 ME 731 A.2d 863 tice, compels performance of a the law omitted). (quotation marks legal duty pay,” moral Paffhausen Balano, Therefore, 1998 ME 708 A.2d as a con- matter of tract—but, contrary to the trial court’s observes, correctly the Court [¶32] As judgment, not unjust enrichment—Green however, the existence of a contractual Tree is entitled recover amounts due parties “pre relationship between the Knopes pursuant recovery cludes on a en indisputably evidence estab- ¶ 13; Opinion richment.” Court’s Nadeau lishes that Green Tree and the Pitman, relationship arising contractual from that omitted); (quotation marks Paffhau here note. Of sums claimed ¶47, sen, 269; see recovery any por- the note allows (Third) also Restatement Restitution & “legal expended by fees” (Am. 2(2) § Unjust Enrichment Law Inst. that arose from efforts enforce 2011) (“A valid contract defines the obli agree note. I with the Court gations as matters within trial matter must be remanded displacing to that scope, its extent court to that amount. determine enrichment.”); inquiry id. cmt. c; Cty. remaining dispute amounts in Comm’rs J. Roland Dashiell & 34] Sons, Inc., 600, property pres- Md. 607- here—taxes costs, fees,” (citing n.8 additional cases ervation “foreclosure portion “legal Co., not fees” attributable Me. Yankee Atomic Power encompassed (D. not 2001) the note—are within the F.Supp.2d (applying 84 Me. rather law). terms of note but Maine Just as the of con- existence pursuant provisions to the recoverable precludes tractual terms un- claim mortgage. assign- Due to the deficient just directly enrichment on matters ad- MERS, ment from not contract, in that dressed a contract that acquire any rights to foreclose on en- generally more reveals an intention property or to cumbered recover “to occupy the universe resulting identified relationships” their financial has whether, not question is on breach effect, “[rjecovery because theory under a un- of contract but rather on of unjust independent enrichment, just Tree is entitled parallel to the [contract] would then be for expenses reimbursement that are impermissible an end run around volun- mortgage-based recoverable tary structuring of relationships rights contract not does consequences.” Id. at 85.6 view, my unjust hold. In not enrichment is That is the case here. In the un- as a remedy available to Green Tree derlying transaction, secured mortgage-based recover those loan GMAC expenses, (the lender) mortgage integrally original because the relates and the creat- subject encompassed comprehensive the same matter rights ed obli- set the note which gations, they some of make chose parties. were part promissory the re- with mainder allocated to the mortgage. The As the District Court for U.S. EU highly regulated structure transac- reasoned, the District of Maine has where intent occupy establishes an “to a contract between covers relationship! universe their financial ]” subject underlying “the same matter” regard to enrichment, agreement. the overall loan unjust claim for the existence Now, Id. left to of that as a seek operates contract bar to re- equitable remedy it is covery equity, the amounts unable even where sought rights in the enrichment claim are enforce to which GMAC and the expressly Knopes agreed encompassed by contract—rights within the terms of the Fed. acquired. contract. Ins. Green Tree has Co. never object arrangement” 6. The federal court concluded that Maine Maine party. proceed Yankee and the Given was entitled to with its Yankee third Id. at 85. circumstances, against these the court concluded that enrichment claim Federal Insurance is not the of contractual relation- despite among “[t]his sort existence of a contract that, Yankee, Insurance, ship general prin- under law Maine Maine Federal and a third enrichment, ciples of action, forecloses recov- party. The circumstances how- ery,” ever, and that Federal Insurance could not factually distinct from this case use the existence of that contract as a shield primarily there contract defined Maine Yankee’s between Maine Yankee and See id. claim. at 85-86. party. Co. third Fed. Ins. v. Me. Yankee Co., Atomic contrast, Power 82-86 the .contract between (D. 2001). Me. Insurance no Federal “took on Knopes—namely, Tree and contract, obligations” in contract did imposes note—creates identify any parties; Federal Insur- bystander, on both neither is a contract, ance would receive to the Insurance at issue Federal contract case, signatory distinguish- and Federal Insurance’s role as a which is therefore "guaranteed only contract that it did able in result. “. “conferr[ing] on the other party” a benefit Green Tree and [¶37] omitted)). however, a (quotation contract— marks namely, note—that the same covered Because the were contrac- forming mortgage as subject matter tually engaged through the note that ac- .part -for-at least of court’s the basis companied the Tree can- mortgage, - Unjust is therefore enrichment award. in not obtain relief here, not that doctrine available in any expenses exclusively addressed an circumstances where is reserved alone, I For mortgage. reason con- this contract does not exist enforceable is not entitled clude that Green Tree needed judicial intervention would be reimbursement for taxes and of an bene retention prevent costs, preservation and foreclo- Paffhausen, 1998 ME fits.. sure fees.7 of unique purposes 269. Because enrich doctrine served B. Saunders and

ment, it here as properly cannot be used Greenleaf run,” Yankee, an “end Me. entirely separate There is an rea- [¶ 40] in a to fill gap at case, why, in the son circumstances incomplete contract acquisition of Tree’s' is not entitled recover in rights benefiting original in GMAC unjust enrichment: basis words, is not the transaction. it other claims arose Tree’s when Green knew contract -the courts to a role of redefine have' that it not should known would parties—including these any right to of the recover ex- Tree, sophisticated is in a concern penses otherwise allowed kinds engaging these business to enter. purported transactions—chose execute an [¶ 41] MERS mortgage of the to Green Tree that, I note also as Green earlier, April years 2013. we Three is- acknowledged argument, invo at oral itself Mortgage our decision Electronic sued support cation enrichment cannot Saunders, Systems, Registration Inc. v. a attorney expenses award fees and sought to foreclose on case where MERS action, incurred foreclosure mortgage property based a that identi- Green Tree’s of those “solely nominee fied MERS as Lend- not to the This Knopes’ did inure benefit. er”—just mortgage as unjust en precludes availability of an the Knopes. received from for that richment claim as a matter law ¶ Saunders, 289. In we held that Eye aspect Green Tree’s claim. See Me. rights” acquired Assocs., Gorman, “only that MERS Care P.A. v. legal “bare to the (stating that one were title 942 A.2d 707 element, recording purpose of claim for the sole the mort- suggestion, mortgage see Contrary able to the that would to the Court’s ¶¶ 21-22, Opinion Coúrt’s at this result been available as a matter contract (cid:127) party seeking avail- from remedies not bar a party mortgage owned the also owns where note it even however, able converse, rights. true: if acquire due did asserting pursu- party is a claim barred assignment. Viewing to deficient because, like Green ant to a underlying one transaction element actually acquire that, merely precludes the note also includes party may seek nonetheless to enforce the relief, obtaining of-the note from owner .the own. provisions of a that it does note avail- equity, on notions otherwise gage corresponding right gave to record lender only right MERS to rec- mortgage Registry not, Deeds.” ord the mortgage as a and “did matter ¶ concluded, law, 10. also Id. We to grant right to fore- MERS ¶89, 15, property.” close on ME mortgage one of in

Not covenants document, An [mortga- assignment 700. of such a including mortgage from some obligations to MERS to other gors’] pay- make timely enti- ty “granted to taxes, assignee] [the therefore pay ments possessed—the what right MERS obtain and maintain mortgage record the protect as property, is made to nominee—because granted could not in MERS favor of another MERS MERS. person entity any greater interest in the Interestingly present purposes, Id. than mortgage enjoyed by that MERS.” happened that we to enumerate ¶ Id. For the reason 16. same that MERS in passage—expenses that MERS was rights itself unable to enforce recoup—include not able to of the many assignees MERS’s are left in the expenses at issue case at bar. with no in' quiver. arrows See id. 17. [¶ 42] Saunders therefore made clear chronology This demonstrates form used such as Tree fully Green in MERS with the transaction early aware at least as as 2010 that the any- is insufficient to allow to do MERS type mortgage purport- Green instrument, thing other than record the acquire ed from MERS would standing and that did MERS convey rights or to ¶¶ foreclose obtain seek a of foreclosure. Id. reimbursement 26. we issued Because our decision provisions of the accepted Saunders well before Green Tree accepted assignment despite be- assignment executed notice, ing placed full our clear fully was law, explication rights— few how nothing notice' that it teceive almost would acquire.8 any—it thereby if through assignment—and certainly rights not the it in this seeks assert chronology Given the action. actions in our decisions Tree’s relation ^[1143] inevitable and Our 2014 decision wholly foreseeable Greenleaf explaining signments, the law I conclude governing that, as a MERS matter of as- law, case, Tree is not step. entitled benefit next In that to which authority pre- equitable from the court’s assigned a mortgage MERS had contain- unjust enrichment. fact ing language in vent the identical addressed rights that sought mort- not hold the motivated Saunders to foreclose on the premises. gaged that a to incur expenses, them We reiterated Regardless that. only, MERS as have known nominee can signified by While of the Green Tree incurred a number the date Greenleaf charges significant for which it seeks reimbursement opinion particularly opinion Saunders, from the before our in Green- holding clear which was issued, such it continued to incur years before the leaf charges issued deci even the issuance of that Am., after to Green See Bank N.A. v. Tree. apparently if sion—and conducted itself 700; Greenleaf, Mortg. possessed that the lessons of Saun Saunders, Registration Sys., Inc. Elec. clearly ders and it did established Greenleaf 79, 2 A.3d 289. Nonetheless, temporal not have. demarca may entity or to whether what liability charges

bear liability recovery, Tree seeks properly on notions predicated

cannot to act equity chose when Green Tree

disregard existing law that defined its

rights. Therefore, aspects on all Knopes except

Tree’s claim pursu- prove that it can is due

any amount note, I to the vacate and remand

ant Knopes. entry for the

IN RE E. MYA

Docket: Yor-16-459

Supreme of Maine. Judicial Court April

Submitted On Briefs: May

Decided:

Roger Esq., M. Cham- Champagne, LLC, Biddeford, for pagne Simpson, & Mother appellant Mills, General, Attorney T. Janet Gen., Szylvian, Meghan Atty. Asst. Office Attorney General, ap- Augusta, Human Department of Health and pellee Services SAUFLEY, C.J., Panel: ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, HUMPHREY, JABAR, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Wayne Knope v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Date Published: May 11, 2017

Citation: 161 A.3d 696

Docket Number: Docket: Yor-15-515

Court Abbreviation: Me.