Bayview Loan Svg. v. Austin

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 4, 2013
DocketYORre-10-106
StatusUnpublished

This text of Bayview Loan Svg. v. Austin (Bayview Loan Svg. v. Austin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bayview Loan Svg. v. Austin, (Me. Super. Ct. 2013).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK, SS. CIVIL ACTION

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ) J~~T~NO. ~-10-~106 ~~· ) Plaintiff, ) ) JUDGMENT OF v. ) FORECLOSURE AND SALE ) ORDER JAMES P. AUSTIN ) ) Defendants, ) )

I. Background

On or about December 15, 2005, Defendant, James P. Austin, executed a

promissory note in the principal amount of $1.1 million, along with a mortgage on his

property at 37 Pepperell Road, Kittery, Maine with Middlebury Equity Partners, LLC

(MEP). The note and mortgage are dated November 17, 2005. A notary acknowledged

the signing of the mortgage on December 9, 2005. Although Defendant originally

believed that the loan was also secured to two additional parcels purchased in his wife's

naine at the same time, the language attached to the mortgage describing the property

secured the loan to only the 37 Pepperell Road property.

On November 28, 2005, prior to the closing, MEP assigned the mortgage to

Plaintiff Plaintiff recorded the assignment of the mortgage on March 20, 2006, after the

mortgage had been executed and recorded. MEP endorsed the Note in blank; thereby

making it payable to the holder, dated November 17, 2005, the same date as listed on the

executed version of the note.

Defendant's loan went into default in July 2008, due to late payments in violation

of the terms of the mortgage agreement. Defendant contacted Plaintiff and requested a

1 loan modification. In the Loan Adjustment Agreement, signed and executed by

Defendant on October 29, 2008, Defendant agreed that he had "no defenses claims or

offsets" with respect to the amount due on the loan.

Defendant's loan again went into default in May 2010. Plaintiff mailed Defendant

two notifications of default including a list ofillJD counselors. Plaintiff alleges

Defendant owed Plaintiff $1,335,481.31 as ofNovember 7, 2012, plus attorney fees and

costs. Plaintiff brought this action on September 7, 2010 seeking a judgment of

foreclosure and sale.

II. Discussion

In order to succeed in a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff must be able to

show, at least,

• "the existence of the mortgage, including the book and page number of the

mortgage, and an adequate description of the mortgaged premises, including

the street address, if any,

• properly present proof of ownership of the mortgage note and the mortgage,

including all assignments and endorsements of the note and the mortgage,

• a breach of condition in the mortgage note, including any reasonable attorney

fees and court costs

• the order of priority and any amounts that may be due to other parties in

interest, including any public utility easements,

• evidence of properly served notice of default and mortgagor's right to cure in

compliance with statutory requirements,

2 • after January 1, 2010, proof of completed mediation (or waiver or default of

mediation), when required, pursuant to the statewide foreclosure mediation

program rules, and

• if the homeowner has not appeared in the proceeding, a statement, with a

supporting affidavit, of whether or not the defendant is in military service in

accordance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act."

Chase Home Finance LLC v Higgins, 2009 :ME 136, ,-r11, 985 A.2d 508, (citations

omitted). A party seeking to foreclose must strictly comply with all statutory steps.

Camden Nat'l Bank v. Peterson, 2008 :ME 85, ,-r21, 948 A.2d 1251. Plaintiff has shown

that a mortgage exists, that it is the owner of both the note and the mortgage, that there

was a breach of condition of the mortgage, that notice was served, and that neither

mediation nor the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act apply to Defendant. Therefore,

Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment will be granted.

The mortgage and the note in question exist and are not disputed by Defendant.

Furthermore, Defendant does not dispute executing the Loan Adjustment Agreement on

October 29, 2008, which reasserted the loan amount and his obligation to make monthly

loan payments.

Defendant has defaulted on the terms of the mortgage agreement and subsequent

Loan Adjustment Agreement. Defendant does not dispute that he failed to make the loan

payments, which led to a default in June 2008, and again in May 2010.

The property is not Defendant's primary residence, therefore Defendant is not

entitled to mediation on the matter. 14 M.R.S. §6321-A (2012). Nonetheless, Defendant

did not attend the scheduled informational session regarding mediation.

3 Plaintiff is not currently a member of the military, therefore not entitled to relief

under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Plaintiff has shown evidence of ownership of the mortgage and note. See 14

M.R.S. § 6321(2012). Plaintiff presented evidence that the note was properly endorsed in

blank and that Plaintiff is the current holder of the note. Plaintiff has offered the mortgage

and an assignment recorded on March 20, 2006 as evidence of ownership of the

mortgage. Plaintiff has complied with the statutory requirements.

The Court concludes that the entire loan amount was agreed upon at the closing

on or about December 15, 2005. "Acceptance of an offer is a manifestation of assent to

the terms thereof made by the offeree in a manner invited or required by the offer."

Restat 2d of Contracts, §50. At the closing, Defendant signed the closing documents

agreeing to the terms of the Mortgage and securing the 37 Pepperell Road property with

the Note, in the form offered by MEP. The Court interprets the signed agreements as they

are written.

Even if the Court were to find that the note did not properly report the loan

amount, the Defendant signed the Loan Adjustment Agreement in 2008, reasserting the

amount owed and waiving any previously arising defenses to the amount due.

Defendant's argument that he was induced to execute the mortgage and note in 2005

under the pretense that the amount due would change, was waived at the time of the

execution of the Loan Adjustment Agreement. Finally, the fact that the description of the

property attached to the Mortgage secured only one of the parcels owned by Defendant

and his wife does not affect Plaintiff's ability to enforce the Mortgage agreement with

respect to the encumbered parcel.

4 ill. Conclusion

The Court finds that there has been a breach of conditions in Bayview Loan

Servicing, LLC (hereinafter "BLS")'s Mortgage, that there is due BLS on its Note and

Mortgage the principal amount of $964,660.60, interest thereon to November 2, 2012 in

the amount of $166,792.00 with additional interest accruing on said principal balance at

the note rate of 6.25%, default interest in the amount of $179,622.88 accruing on said

principal balance at the note rate of 7.00%, late charges in the amount of $1,201.38,

escrow advances of $20,710.70, corporate advances of $2,482.25, attorneys' fees and

costs for services provided by Bendett & McHugh, P.C. in the amount of $3,053.25 (as

indicated in the Affidavit of Elizabeth M. Crowe, dated November 6, 2012), plus any

additional fees and costs incurred for trial and post-judgment proceedings, through and

including the sale of the property.

The order of priority of the liens is:

a.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chase Home Finance LLC v. Higgins
2009 ME 136 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2009)
Camden National Bank v. Peterson
2008 ME 85 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bayview Loan Svg. v. Austin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bayview-loan-svg-v-austin-mesuperct-2013.